should I write a list of rules so a colleague treats me decently?

by Alison Green on March 31, 2025

A reader writes:

This is a community organizing issue, but it is ultimately about working closely with someone where there’s conflict, and one where I think a professional approach might be most useful.

I (they/them) am a leader in a social justice-oriented community organization along with someone I’ll call Paul (he/they). We have the same type of leadership position, and we’re both quite active so we communicate daily and are in meetings at least once a week. We’ve been in conflict for four months, since I told Paul that the way Paul interrupts, criticizes, corrects, scolds, and dismisses me and other folks who were assigned female at birth feels sexist. Paul’s response? They didn’t really understand how that could be, because they aren’t “that attached to masculinity,” but they would take my word for it.

However, Paul’s behavior hasn’t changed, and I have subsequently found out that two people have stepped away from the organization because of what they also perceived as sexism from Paul. Regularly — sometimes multiple times in a week — I have to be really direct saying “don’t interrupt me” or “I just answered that question,” etc. At times, this disrespectful behavior impacts the group’s work, such as when Paul speaks for me on an issue where they don’t have correct information or when Paul goes behind my back and gives instructions to someone I’m assigned to work with that are in tension with what I’m telling that person. In these situations, I have been telling Paul that this is frustrating/unacceptable/etc., admittedly sometimes with annoyance. Paul often responds that they are confused and don’t understand what they did. Sometimes, I also get long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations. It’s inappropriate behavior, even if I am communicating very unclearly, which is what Paul believes is the problem. Paul has recently been pursuing a diagnosis of autism, and it feels to me that they are weaponizing this new diagnosis, which is not fair to other autistic people in our organization, who don’t behave this way.

There’s no “boss” or HR in this situation, but there are a few people we both trust and who have the cultural capital to potentially help us try to move toward a better way of working together. One of them has heard us each out and feels that we need to make a written agreement about how we will interact so that Paul has clear rules to follow. My concern is that I have repeatedly communicated what isn’t acceptable to me, and Paul hasn’t changed their behavior. I’m struggling to figure out how I would write up a list of rules that Paul would respect. Moreover, this really isn’t an issue just between Paul and me; it’s more about Paul’s behavior in general. Other options include me leaving the group, which is possible though not ideal, and another option is that I continue to just hold boundaries with Paul (trying to always communicate extremely clearly!), which is also not ideal but is something I could do. Paul is certainly not the first person I’ve worked with who has treated me in a way I experience as sexist! I know Paul doesn’t want either of these options; they want a list of rules. I’m wondering what guidance you would offer on how to proceed. Is it worth trying the written agreement to see if it helps? What would I even put in such a list? What options haven’t I considered?

I wrote back and asked, “Does anyone have the authority to fire Paul or otherwise remove him from the group?” The answer:

As far as I know, there is no process in our org for removing someone for this level of problematic behavior.

The biggest problem here is that there’s no mechanism for removing someone who’s driven off multiple people.

You’ve already lost two people because of Paul. Is the organization willing to continue losing people just to avoid getting rid of him?

I think that’s the bigger issue, even though it’s not the one you’re writing to me about. As a leader in the organization, you have the standing to bring that to the rest of the leadership and argue that the org needs to be willing to remove volunteers who won’t follow a basic code of conduct or are otherwise disruptive or harmful to the organization.

As for the idea of a written list of rules for Paul … eh. You’ve already told him what needs to change — he needs to stop interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group — and he claims not to understand. I’m skeptical that putting it in writing is going to suddenly open his eyes. But sure, if this idea of a written list is being pushed by others in your leadership, you might as well write up the list so that you can say you’ve done it and there’s no question that Paul has been clearly told what needs to change. (And if autism is in play, the list could genuinely be helpful.) In addition to covering the interrupting, criticizing, scolding, and dismissing other members of the group, you should also include that Paul can’t send ranting emails with expletives and personal insults.

But I think you also need to be thinking about what’s going to happen if/when he continues to be an ass despite receiving the list. Right now your org can’t figure out how to resolve this because it’s denying itself an essential tool in running a healthy organization (the willingness to part ways with someone) and this is unlikely to be solved until that changes.

To be clear, that doesn’t even mean you’ll definitely need to cut Paul loose (although I suspect you will). Sometimes just making it clear that’s an option on the table will get the person to change their behavior. Either way, though, being willing to do that is an absolutely crucial part of running an effective organization that people won’t keep fleeing from.

You may also like:
{ 347 comments }

{ 347 comments… read them below }

    1. Antilles*

      I agree. Also, because the organization has no process for dumping people and others are suggesting it, so having that documented trail of things will help get people on board to take action.
      I would also make sure the list includes something like like “and similar behaviors which show a lack of respect for others”, just to cut off any potential for rules-lawyering about well it didn’t really say I can’t do X.

      1. OrangeCup*

        Shouldn’t the people that hire people in this organization be the same people firing people?

        1. metadata minion*

          It sounds like these are all volunteers, so there probably isn’t any kind of formal hiring process anyway.

      2. DrMrsC*

        I’ve worked with Paul’s before, where very explicit guidance/rules were set out. The Pauls of the world will ALWAYS find a loophole. You don’t have a communication problem, you have a Paul problem. I think in trying to be kind, and give some grace to our neurodivergent peers, sometimes we forget people can still just be jerks. Autistic or not, Paul is a jerk and that should be his problem to manage not everyone else’s.

        1. goddessoftransitory*

          This. A list is just another goalpost that Paul will shove around like a cheap Ikea cabinet, first in this corner, than that one, insisting that it needs to be anywhere else and doesn’t count until it is.

        2. Antilles*

          True enough, but that’s not really the point of the guidance. The organization has never let anyone go. Having the explicit guidance (and some language about “respecting others”) isn’t because I think it’s going to change Paul. Instead, the point of doing so is to get others on board with OP taking action and kicking Paul out, avoiding the arguments about “Paul didn’t understand” or “we didn’t really have a clear policy” or etc. Now, both the rules and the broader expectations are laid out so it’s clear that he’s violating the spirit of the policy even if he tries to well actually a loophole.

        4. MM*

          Social justice environments sometimes suffer from the same social fallacies that are classically associated with nerd interest groups (for anyone who’s not familiar, look up the 5 Geek Social Fallacies). If the ethos is the group is to oppose exclusion, then it can be very difficult to get the group to deal with a problem person who is damaging the entire enterprise for everyone else, because that would make “us” the exclusionary ones, which isn’t who “we” are–or rather, isn’t who we want to see ourselves as, because of course tolerating this behavior is having the effect of exclusion anyway.

    2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

      Can you maybe think of the list as more documenting the instances of Paul’s behaviour that have been disrespectful and/or inappropriate, then extrapolating themes from those instances? On its face, the request does seem a little odd, but you can maybe make it work for you.

    3. Don’t know what to call myself*

      I’m going to say, yes, make the list, but also ask the people who suggested making the list what the plan is if Paul continues to violate it. They’ve been told multiple times that their behavior is unacceptable, but keep engaging in that behavior anyway. I’m skeptical that having it written down will mean that he magically starts observing boundaries and engaging in professional behavior, and the org needs a plan for what will be done if Paul continues to behave in these ways.

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        I’d like to hope that if the LW makes the rules – in whatever form makes the most sense to them – and Paul continues to break them or leans in hard on rules lawyering, that will demonstrate to the others that this is not a fixable situation. But people make all sorts of wild decisions.

      2. Miette*

        This is a good point – don’t waste time making the list (which he will ignore anyway – I think the entire world agrees with that lol) until repercussions are understood. Make it a three strikes thing or something, but this is honestly just goal post moving and Paul is playing you.

    4. Butterfly Counter*

      I have to say that if I were in OP’s shoes, I’d be resistant to the list. It feels like Paul is asking for it in bad faith.

      “You only said that I’m not supposed to email expletives. You didn’t say anything about voice mail or voice notes…”

      “The list said I’m not to interrupt you or others in meetings, but the meeting had adjourned, so it wasn’t in the meeting…”

      He’s going to rules lawyer all over the list to prove he’s right and has always been right and continue sexist behavior because Paul doesn’t care about anything but their own perspective.

      1. Grizzled*

        If the list includes “don’t interrupt,” he’s definitely going to become the interrupting police. People interrupt each other all the time, but it becomes a problem when a person targets their interruption on certain people (ex: women, someone they dislike) or when the interrupting effectively silences people, or when they dominate all conversations. You’ll need to include nuance in how you write the rules around interrupting.

        1. Presea*

          Yup. Something like “Be respectful when other people are talking. For example, sometimes its acceptable to interrupt other people a little bit, but it should be done very sparingly. The most important part is treating others with respect. It’s okay to alert someone to something urgent or to give someone information thats very relevant to what they’re probably about to say, but its disrespectful to prevent others from sharing their thoughts entirely” (there’s probably much better phrasing than this that could be used)

          Maybe the document can be repurposed to help people who struggle with social norms in the future if its written this way.

          1. Clisby*

            Similarly, the rule shouldn’t be “no rants or expletives in emails” – it needs to be “no rants, insults, or expletives in communicating with others.” There is no situation where any of those is OK.

          2. Anandatic*

            I really think this misses the point. It’s really clear that the issue isn’t Paul’s lack of understanding (LE has tri d many times!), and spending this much energy trying to specify basic human communication (which has already been explained to Paul, and which they already seems able to do just fine with non-AFAB folks) is just going to result in Paul saying “I can’t remember all that” or finding ways to circumvent the rules anyway. (“Well, I thought it was urgent!”)

            I really think it’s important to focus on Paul being a jerk to anyone AFAB and driving them away,. Paul may or may not have autism, but as someone with autism myself, I can tell you that utistic people can also be jerks and use their diagnosis as an excuse. People who are jerks will continue to find ways to be jerks and defend their right to be jerks, and I encourage you to not enable that kind of behaviour.

            1. Blueberry*

              I agree with this. A list isn’t going to fix Paul’s behavior. I don’t think it’s a bad idea to have a general written code of conduct that applies to all members, but going into it with a mindset of “how can we keep Paul from loopholing his way out of this” isn’t going to be beneficial to anyone.

        2. Blueberry*

          Yes, and then the list will end up getting way too granular – which will just give Paul more opportunities to rules-lawyer, IMO. “You said that interrupting is allowed in an urgent situation but not if the comment can wait until the first person has finished speaking, but yesterday I saw Sally interrupt John to remind him that we have to break for lunch in five minutes, and I feel like that could have waited.”

      2. Galloping Possum*

        This 100%. He’s not trying to change, he wants the list so he can be the biggest asshat possible while adhering to the “rules”.

      3. ChattyDelle*

        this, exactly. Paul is going to play semantics and continue his behavior. No list can be comprehensive enough to prevent this. “Paul, don’t kick the chair”. “I’m not kicking it, I’m tapping it”. And since he’s been told not to interrupt or go behind the LW’s back and he claims ” not to understand”, how is writing a list going to increase his “understanding”?

        1. CanadaGoose*

          It might be futile! But as Alison notes, if autism is in play, having a written list of expectations on how to behave socially (professionally, respectfully with other people) may be absorbed much better than verbal communication or even specific feedback about individual instances. Autistic people often really like and appreciate logical structures, real justice and/or equity, and may have auditory processing difficulties. So a well-written set of rules for interacting with humans is much more likely to be absorbed than what may have happened so far. But this may be too much to ask of the OP! I thought the guy might really need re-training via a social skills group and/or an individual therapist/coach.

          1. Kevin Sours*

            A list will only be helpful to the extent that Paul wants to understand what he is doing wrong and change his behavior. From what OP has written it does not sound like he does.

          2. Polly Hedron*

            the guy might really need re-training via a social skills group and/or an individual therapist/coach

            Paul does need those things but isn’t likely to accept them.

          3. EventPlannerGal*

            I can see something like this working in a situation where Paul says, genuinely and with sincerity, “I understand that my behaviour has been unacceptable and I want to improve, but I’m struggling to get a handle on the specifics – could you give me a couple of examples so I know where to start?”

            I do not see, under any circumstances, this working in a situation where Paul thinks this is a lot of fuss over nothing and a third party says “fine, just write me a list of Things Paul Isn’t Allowed To Do Any More”.

          4. Avocado*

            Having worked with many autistic people, and being autistic myself, I am not reading Paul’s behaviour, as described in the letter, as autistic. It would perhaps explain an occasional misunderstanding, but not the overall pattern. Particularly from someone who has got to a fairly senior role.

            What I am recognising is the kind of behaviour I have experienced from people who just enjoy being asshats and are conscious of social norms but don’t think they should apply to them.

            Even if autism is a root cause, it does not mean everyone else has to accept being treated poorly by Paul. It would be a reason, not an excuse. Boundaries should be made and held.

        2. Blueberry*

          This isn’t the exact same concept, but I’m reminded of one of my favorite Captain Awkward lines: “Reasons are for reasonable people.” If you tell a reasonable person “no” and explain why, they’ll respect your no and probably appreciate knowing the rationale for your decision. If you do the same with an unreasonable person, they’ll see your reasons as obstacles they need to work around. (Like if you tell someone that you’re not interested in dating them because you don’t have much in common, a reasonable person will think, “Okay, they’re not interested” and move on. An unreasonable person might say something like, “Oh, that’s okay! You said you like watercolor painting, right? I’ve always wanted to learn how to paint; maybe you could teach me!”)

          I think a similar logic applies when it comes to setting rules like this. A reasonable person will hear “Please stop correcting other volunteers” and think “Ah, whoops, I guess I’m getting people’s nerves” and try to dial it back. An unreasonable person will think, “Well, I didn’t correct Sarah just now because I didn’t tell her that her way was wrong; I just told her I’d do it differently if it were me.”

      4. Pete*

        Paul is not asking for the list a mediator is which means the list will become an item for further disagreement.

      5. Artemesia*

        Yes — this is the old ‘put together a report’ response when someone brings up an organizational problem. There is no commitment to even reading that report or acting on it — it is a common way to cool out someone who is complaining while doing nothing. The LW needs to be clear that the organization needs a way to dismiss volunteers who are driving off other volunteers. Only in that context would writing the list make any sense. i.e. here is the list codifying what has already been said to Fergus many times; he continues to do these things so it is time to remove him from the group.

        Time to look around for other organizations committed to these goals and thing about moving to one of them and taking the other disgusted volunteers with you.

      6. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

        Yeah, I’ve had people weaponize “you have to tell me bluntly and clearly about everything” in exactly this way. It’s maddening because… well, have any of you done the demonstration thing where one person writes instructions for making a peanut butter sandwich, and another person tries to take it literally? Including stuff like trying to stick a knife in the closed jar because the instructions didn’t explicitly say to open the jar? Or spread peanut butter on both sides of the bread because you didn’t say just one side?

        It’s like that. With everything. Forever. And it’s extremely upsetting to have someone act disrespectfully or worse and then be expected to calmly admit that you were unclear and try to write another rule in such a way that a bad faith actor couldn’t twist it. (Which is impossible.)

        1. metadata minion*

          As someone who also struggles with social cues (luckily my failure mode is usually to just not talk, so at least I don’t usually end up offending anyone), it’s incredibly frustrating to ask for help and then be given what seems to be steps 2, 7, and 12 of a process.

          Sometimes it’s bad faith; sometimes it’s because it really is incredibly difficult to either explain or identify in action the difference between a cooperative-overlapping conversational style and rude interrupting, other than “the latter makes people unhappy, so if they’re mad at you, you did it wrong”.

          I want to be clear, this isn’t the job of anyone to teach to their coworkers. And Paul seems like he’s at best overenthusiastic and needs to dial way back until he gets better at both conversation and making sure he’s clear on the instructions/information he’s passing on. But I’m a bit taken aback by how many people are insisting that no, nobody can possibly be this bad at social skills without it being malicious.

          1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

            Here’s the thing: most neurotypical people are no more conscious of steps 1, 3-6, and 8-11 than you are. When you go to open a jar of something, I presume you don’t consciously think “lift arm, extend hand, expand fingers, allow palm to make contact with jar, wrap fingers around jar tightly enough that it will not slip but not so tight you deform the plastic, engage forearm muscles, lift jar. Right? It’s muscle memory. It’s wired in. You have to do a fair bit of thinking to break it down that far. And you’ll still miss something, probably (how tight *is* “tight enough to not slip”, and can you explain that to someone in words, when they don’t have a built-in PSI meter? do you also need to tell them how to open the cupboard? do they need “cupboard” and “jar” explained?).

            This stuff is not stuff neurotypical people are consciously aware of. NT people are bad at explaining this for the same reason that people with working hands are bad at explaining how to pick up a jar. It would be nice for a comprehensive list to work, but it’s not possible. And I think that causes irritation for all parties.

            1. metadata minion*

              Right, I absolutely understand that! I’m just frustrated at the way a lot of people here are framing these things as “simple”, and recommending condescending to Paul by giving him kindergarden-style instructions. This isn’t simple. It’s incredibly complicated especially, as you say, for people who’ve learned it effectively by immersion.

              1. Starbuck*

                It’s really not that complicated if he’s able to avoid interrupting men, as OP says. Clearly he knows how.

                It’s not complicated to say “don’t use expletives when you speak to me” and it’s a simple direction to follow.

                I think it’s pretty clear that Paul is NOT OPEN to being corrected to working on these things, otherwise he would have already.

                In my experience being ND and being with ND & autistic people – clear simple directions like those above are so appreciated for someone who wants to get along. There’s a rule I can follow that will make you happy? Awesome!
                Paul is obviously not interesting in wanting to get along here. I know it’s easy to self-insert and identify with people in these letters who may be ND, but we don’t need to identify with intentional assholes.

            2. Blueberry*

              Yeah, the point of the “teach somebody exactly how to make a peanut butter sandwich” exercise is that most people don’t get it right on the first try. No matter how thorough you are, there’s always more detail you could add – and the definition of doing it “right” will depend on the audience. (For example, do you start by assuming the ingredients are already on the counter, or do you need to explain where to find them in the kitchen? Does the reader know the difference between peanut butter and bread, or do you need to explain that peanut butter is the sticky brown stuff that comes in a jar? And if so, do they know what a jar is? And so on.) A lot of it is subjective.

              That’s not to say that clear and detailed instructions can’t be useful! They can be, as long as the person is willing to identify the areas where they struggle and ask for clarification as needed. “You said to dip the knife into the peanut butter, but do I use the blade of the knife or the handle?” is completely fair. “Your instructions don’t make any sense to me so I’m not even going to try to make this sandwich at all” is not.

        2. Naomi*

          Oh, we did a version of that in my Intro to Computer Science class, to demonstrate how literally computers follow instructions. The teacher roleplayed as a lost freshman who needed directions to the main office. We couldn’t even get him out the door.

          I agree that the list is just going to become ammunition for Paul to rules-lawyer that anything not explicitly forbidden is fair game. Paul’s goal here isn’t to collaborate respectfully, it’s to find the bare minimum he has to change to avoid consequences. And if the organization keeps trying to both-sides the issue and act like OP bears equal responsibility to smooth things over, that bare minimum is zero.

          At some point, it’s no longer about whether Paul is trying in good faith to behave (he isn’t, but he can claim so all day long) and becomes a matter of whether keeping Paul around is doing more damage to the organization than expelling him.

          1. Six for the truth over solace in lies*

            Yes. And it also ties in with another problem I’ve seen in community orgs: an allergy to ever saying as a group that a person is wrong or ascribe any blame (or even any responsibility!). Because of that, “both sides have things to work on” reigns supreme. In cases where one side really didn’t do a single thing wrong, this winds up being something awful like “Pat, I know that Alex stole your printer, but it didn’t help that you got angry about it and brought it up at a staff meeting. Can we all agree to resolve disputes calmly in the future?”

      7. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        He is not only the rules police, he is the rules judge and jury.
        “Paul, you systematically and continually treat persons assigned at birth in a sexist manner.”
        “I am not sexist, therefore I do not.”
        WTF?

    5. Reaganomics Lamborghini*

      Providing a list of rules seems like a trap because it can’t possibly be exhaustive. Paul will inevitably do something that is obviously disrespectful that isn’t explicitly on the list, and they’ll try to justify their behavior because it wasn’t written down. The organization needs to get rid of this person and move on.

      1. Delta Delta*

        And not only that, why is it OP’s problem to have to control Paul by making a list? The org feels a little toxic, too.

      2. Margaret Cavendish*

        This. And also, if you’re at the point of giving written instructions for how to treat people with respect – you’ve already lost. He’s an adult, and autism or no autism, he knows at least some things about communicating with other people. How do we know? Because *OP has told him* how to communicate with other people!

        He has all the information he needs at this point, and you have all the information you need. Paul sucks and isn’t going to change.

        1. Dogwoodblossom*

          Also, it’s not “people” he needs to treat with respect, it’s “women/afab people.” Paul knows perfectly well how to treat the people he sees *as people* respectfully.

    6. OrangeCup*

      Find a list online for the golden rules or standard rules of kindergarten behavior: “Be Nice”, “Treat Others How You Would Like to Be Treated”. Because clearly OP is working in an org ran by children who have no idea how to manage staff

      1. Grizzled*

        A passive aggressive move, but it could work! Sometimes when adults are acting like children they respond better to child-level accountabilities.

      2. bamcheeks*

        But this isn’t about “managing staff”. It’s a community organisation with leadership but no management structure.

        There is a lot of advice here which seems to assume that you can just apply workplace norms like “fire them” and “managing staff”. And there are some volunteer organisation and NFPs which do work that way. But if this is more like a co-op, or some other kind of movement or group which doesn’t have a hierarchy, these are not useful concepts! Yes, it makes sense to have some kind of process for removing people from leadership roles or dissociating from them, but that can a lot more complex in a non-hierarchical organisation, especially one that values inclusion, and that doesn’t mean it’s an “organisation run by children who have no idea how to manage staff”.

        1. OrangeCup*

          They’re valuing inclusion so much they’re letting themselves be held hostage by someone who seems to be weaponizing the geek social fallacies and is driving away other good people. I think at least some of these people would have held jobs in regular hierarchical workplaces at some point so they might need to start applying some of those norms in cases like these.

          1. A. Lab Rabbit*

            This! It’s the Paradox of Tolerance. Tolerance should be a social contract, not an absolute rule.

        2. Pescadero*

          IME – organization with no hierarchical structure and extreme inclusion – are by definition run by people who have abdicated managing staff.

          It’s a structure that IMO guarantees this sort of dysfunction. It is functionally unworkable.

          1. bamcheeks*

            I think that’s a really narrow point of view! There are functional non-hierarchical organisations in many religious traditions, protest movements, mutual aid societies and non-Western societies. Fair enough if you don’t want to be part of one or find out more about them, but to simply to dismiss them all as dysfunctional because Western society prefers hierarchies is wild.

      3. Elsa*

        Maybe OP could write a rhyming list of rules, Dr Seuss style: “No interrupting in a box, no interrupting with a fox.”

      5. JustaTech*

        My undergrad had a short set of rules complied by the student on how to behave (the administration had something more official).
        Rule 1: don’t be a jackass.
        All the other rules flowed from this rule (which is another way of stating the Golden rule). Some of them had to be very specific (“no napalm”), but everything about interpersonal interactions followed directly from “don’t be a jackass”.

        Sure, some folks need reminding about what constitutes “being a jackass”, but it’s actually a pretty clear starting point.

        Paul is being a jackass.

    7. Throwaway Account*

      I think the problem with a list is that it cannot be exhaustive and that will lead to someone (Paul) saying that x thing he did just now is not on the list.

      But yeah, the org is asking for a list, give them a list.

      1. Polly Hedron*

        It sounds like just one person in the org has asked for the list. If that person has power to get rid of Paul, LW should make the list and run it by that person.
        The list won’t change Paul but may gain LW an ally.

    8. HailRobonia*

      I’d worry that Paul will take the list to be “the letter of the law” and violate it in spirit. Or suddenly “your list didn’t include not throwing fish at people so I can throw fish.”

      1. CeeDoo*

        Throw the fish awayy and it comes back to me! (muppet christmas carol quote you reminded me of)

    9. Morning Flowers*

      As an autistic person with autistic family members, do NOT give him a list. The list is a trap. Then when he does *anything* that’s not actually on the list, but is still obviously (yes even to his obstinate autistic ass) NOT OKAY, he’ll make it your fault it wasn’t on the list. I’ve been there. It’s not helpful.

      Hold him to the same standards as everyone else, *especially* when he’s obviously being a bad actor.

      1. Can’t Think of a Good Name*

        THIS. As an autistic person myself, I HATE when people try to use being neurodivergent or possibly neurodivergent as an excuse to be glassbowls. Paul already isn’t taking into account the feedback he’s gotten from multiple people, people have left because of him, and he’s continuing to double down on his behaviours rather than attempting to change them.

        1. Calamity Janine*

          it’s both infantalizing in its ableism, and also… doomed to fail.

          let’s say that Paul indeed just doesn’t know they aren’t supposed to yell insults. that nobody has told them this in a way they understand.

          well, the LW has told them too. and it hasn’t worked. Paul does not think they are worth listening to here. why expect Paul to suddenly change their mind?

          if it’s actually all down to Paul not being neurotypical… which i don’t think it is, but we can assume facts not in evidence to make a point here lol… then it’s way out of the LW’s pay grade. Paul probably needs someone with professional experience and knowledge that the LW does not have. expecting the LW to suddenly gain this knowledge for Paul’s benefit is not really a fair ask, same as it’s not fair to expect the LW to learn how to do heart surgery because another one of their coworkers needs a triple bypass. it’s also not fair to Paul if they really do need this increased level of support to figure it out! expecting Paul to make do with amateur hour is also going to be a bad time for Paul, and is going to dismiss their problems as not real enough to be handled by anything more than a layperson. it’s unfair to the person who needs open heart surgery, too! there’s no shame in needing professional help, but if professional help is what Paul truly needs, then half measures and shrugs are going to just be another way Paul is let down.

    10. Sharon*

      I’m going to give Paul the benefit of the doubt here and suggest a meeting to agree upon guidelines for communication for the whole group (not just Paul specifically). Paul should be a part of this. If it doesn’t help with the Paul situation, it might still be helpful to the group as a whole.

      1. Grizzled*

        I disagree. Paul is the obvious problem here, so the solution should be to deal with Paul. Having everyone get together for a general communications exercise would burden everyone with making rules on how not to be a jerk, leave them wondering why they have to do this, and wondering if they are the jerk that caused this group exercise. Paul could carry on having no idea that this exercise was directed at him.

  2. Athenae*

    “Is the organization willing to continue losing people just to avoid getting rid of him?”

    This is THE fundamental question holding back like 90 percent of small nonprofits and community organizations. And boy do people get shirty when you ask it.

    1. I am just watching the comments...*

      Agreed.

      I’ve seen letters and comments here and elsewhere “A volunteer is awful, but also, we don’t have a lot of volunteers. How can the awfulness be minimized without getting rid of the volunteer?”

    2. Beth*

      Yes, this! I see why OP is resistant to the list concept – yes, documentation is good in theory, but only if people are willing to use it to take action, and it doesn’t sound like this org is fundamentally willing to take action. That makes the documentation a pretty hollow process–OP can write whatever lists they want and track whatever complaints they want, it’s just going to be a waste of time if the org’s leadership team won’t act on it.

      OP, there are a lot of groups out there doing social justice-oriented community organization. If your current group continues to refuse to take meaningful action on Paul–meaning action that has direct impact on your quality of life here, like moving him out of a leadership role or ending his membership–then I bet that there are other organizations local to you whose work you believe in and who would love to have your skills and experience on board.

    3. I am just watching the comments...*

      I see many comments for OP to leave the organization.

      I hope OP stays and creates an infrastructure to address consequences for bad behavior.

    4. goddessoftransitory*

      Sure do. I find that a lot of the time the Paul of the organization is the distraction from a LOT of other problems.

    5. Myrin*

      Pfff, I’m in local government, so not exactly a small nonprofit, and that is honestly the problem here. My very special coworker has driven off four people that I know of and several more that I’ve heard of and yet apparently my boss would rather continue to hire new people instead of dealing with that one person. (In fact, there are multiple cases of this right now, the one I’m thinking of is just the one I’m personally closest to because of my specific job.)

    7. Ivkra*

      I wonder if OP’s org would benefit from pointing out that getting rid of a toxic leader does not, in fact, mean kicking them out of the community altogether. Based on the way OP writes, I’m guessing this is a local community organizing group with fairly radical – and, and I mean this quite sincerely, laudable! – principles about not excluding people from community and/or consensus decision-making practices. The problem is, consensus-based organizing only works if no one, literally no one in the group, approaches in bad faith. Otherwise, you get this scenario. People “vote with their feet” by leaving because it is impossible to “silence” or “exclude” anyone, including someone who consistently speaks over and interrupts and fights with others, silencing and excluding them while employing the group’s principles to prevent any consequences.

      In my experience, there are two ways to deal with this. OP can either (preferably with a few allies) dig their heels in for a long fight and call out every. single. instance. of this behavior, every time, until someone feels comfortable saying in a meeting, “this is a persistent behavior pattern of silencing others, and it’s making many marginalized members of our group feel excluded and unwelcome. I think we need to discuss ways to confront this directly,” or until Paul quits doing it or leaves leadership.

      The other method is to talk to the rest of the leadership, preferably including the people who have left because of Paul, and take Allison’s advice – come to the next meeting with a plan to tell Paul they are no longer welcome in leadership because of their behavior, but will ALWAYS be welcome in the community broadly, in order to prevent a situation where people feel that principles of inclusion are being betrayed.

      And just FWIW, please please please drop the afab/amab language, especially when discussing behavior patterns. 1) If Paul is non-binary, it’s extremely shitty to refer to them by their assigned sex at birth (and unless you have additional info, bear in mind you often don’t actually know this information – one issue with afab/amab is that it obscures intersex people), 2) It’s the behavior that’s the problem; everything else about Paul is irrelevant (autism as well, for example), and 3) I have absolutely seen anarchist groups and unions struggle to address this behavior by women before. Don’t make the mistake of assuming it will always be who you expect to derail a meeting.

      1. LK*

        On your last point, I think you may be misunderstanding the LW. They don’t say what Paul’s agab is. They do say Paul is directing this behaviour at people who are afab, which is relevant. It means that Paul is grouping afab people together in their head as people they do not need to respect. If Paul is not behaving this way to everyone regardless of agab, then Paul cannot claim not to understand how to behave respectfully.

        1. Ivkra*

          Mmm. Thank you for pointing that out. You’re right – I should not have made that comment about Paul’s assigned sex at birth.

          I still disagree that the language is necessary. Unless LW does, in fact, know the assigned sex at birth of every person Paul speaks over, it is also shitty to assume that everyone he’s talking over is afab, for the same reasons. Not every trans woman outs herself, even in radical groups, and not every seemingly-cis woman was assigned female at birth – and even if the majority of the people they’re talking about are cis women, trans men, and short, beardless, high-voiced non-binary people*, it’s still offensive to refer to any of those people, or all of them as a group, as “afab.”

          *speaking as one such person, who has noticed that “afab” is a label people (especially in local, left-leaning, community-organizing type groups) are -extremely- quick to apply to me and most others like me, incorrectly.

          1. Arrietty*

            It’s quite plausible that Paul behaves this way towards anyone *they perceive* as being AFAB, whether or not that is accurate, and regardless of Paul’s AGAB. That’s still a problem rooted in gender.

            1. Hannah Lee*

              Actually, it’s still a problem rooted in *Paul*

              He chooses to be rude, disrespectful to groups of people he chooses.

              The issue isn’t with who he’s choosing*, it’s that his behavior is rude, disrespectful, unwelcome and disruptive to the organization and its mission, driving other volunteers away.

              *Although his selective disrespect shows a pattern that makes clear he KNOWS what respectful behavior is, he’s just decided to be a jerk sometimes.

          2. LW who is not necessarily going to write a list*

            Thanks Ivkra, that’s a great point about the problems with using afab/amab language in most cases where we’re making assumptions about others. I will take it on and be more careful in the future. – LW

    8. Starbuck*

      Agreed. Most people get into these mission-focused groups/orgs because they want to be kind and helpful and serve the community. They don’t think they’re necessarily signing up for tough decisions, conflict, or exclusion. They may even think they’re leaving that behind if they’re coming from the corporate world or another stressful background. Unfortunately managing conflict is inherent to any social group but some would prefer to pretend otherwise and try to take the path of somehow being nice (but not necessarily kind) to everyone, always.

  3. Do You Hear The People Sing?*

    Seems like tying these behaviors to masculinity may be giving Paul an “out”. It’s just rude, dismissive behavior, no matter who does it.

    1. Dawn*

      I don’t think anyone’s tying them to masculinity except Paul, though – they’re creating that out and then walking through it. Other people are telling them that they’re being sexist towards people they perceive as femme: that’s not a masculine-exclusive behaviour (in fact, women can pretty famously be sexist to other women.)

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        OP is tying them to masculinity, or, more specifically, to sexism: “I told Paul that the way Paul interrupts, criticizes, corrects, scolds, and dismisses me and other folks who were assigned female at birth feels sexist.” I agree that calling it sexism might actually make him think it’s NBD for him to act this way since maybe he doesn’t think sexism is a problem. Take the sexism argument out of the equation* and just tell him he can’t treat *people* like this, full stop.

        *I’m not saying he’s not sexist, I’m just saying that calling it sexism probably makes him defensive and less likely to change his ways. Unfortunately. But of course the real problem here is exactly what AAM says, that there are no consequences of his actions.

        1. Don’t know what to call myself*

          Calling a behavior sexist doesn’t necessarily tie it to masculinity. Patriarchy, yes, but not necessarily masculinity. The person in my work history who exhibited the most sexist behavior toward women in the workplace was a woman herself.

          1. some dude*

            Paul identifies as non-binary which implies that he sees himself as distanced from masculine roles and behavior. He might see being called sexist as an attack on his identity

            1. Andromeda Carr*

              Not that it would likely do any good in Paul’s case, but the rebuttal to that idea is that anyone can be sexist — sexism is about treating people badly based on their sex, not about the identity of the one ladling out the bad treatment. [insert joke about how if I had a dollar for every sexist woman I’ve ever dealt with i could buy a really big computer or somesuch]

        2. Dawn*

          That doesn’t tie it to masculinity! You can be sexist towards your own gender or to people of any gender in between. Being sexist isn’t an inherently binary thing.

          1. Calamity Janine*

            exactly! if you could avoid any sexism by being not a man, there would certainly be far fewer women out there wrestling with internalized misogyny. including teenage me!

            the systemic misunderstanding of the problem on Paul’s part – and looking immediately for a way to dismiss it – does not fill me with hope that they could actually listen to, well, anyone on this. if you interact with the idea there’s work to do primarily by finding a way to get out of the work, the work is never going to get done.

        3. Slow Gin Lizz*

          I misread the letter and didn’t realize that it was Paul himself who was saying that he couldn’t possibly be acting sexist because he’s not tied to his masculinity. So yeah, I agree that sexism and masculinity aren’t the same thing at all and his equating the two is ridiculous.

          1. Observer*

            I misread the letter and didn’t realize that it was Paul himself who was saying that he couldn’t possibly be acting sexist because he’s not tied to his masculinity.

            Which is all the more reason to not tie the behavior to sexism.

            A much better response, from the point of getting results, is “OK, it is not *actually* sexist. But it is STILL rude as all get out. And in context like ours, it’s important to remember that impact is more important than intent. So, whether you *mean* to be sexist is just not relevant. That’s how your behavior lands, which is just another reason that it needs to stop. Because, it’s just rude, anyway.”

            This is a situation where going down the rabbit hole of “is he sexist” simply does not help anyone. I don’t want the LW to have to imply that they think he’s not being sexist. But they do need to not let him side track the discussion. Both with him, and organizational leadership.

          2. Beany*

            Agreed, but also: Paul *saying* that he/they “aren’t that attached to masculinity” doesn’t actually mean he/they “aren’t that attached to masculinity”. People don’t shed all their learned behavior and bad habits when they embrace a new gender identity.

      2. Adam*

        Yeah, but this behavior would be unacceptable even if it was directed at a man. The problem isn’t differential treatment, it’s the behavior itself, so talking about sexism mostly just clouds the issue. It makes the discussion about whether they’re treating different people differently rather than about how they’re treating this person in particular.

        That’s not to say that it isn’t a reflection of sexism, it’s that it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t, so trying to litigate the sexism just makes the situation less clear.

        1. Dawn*

          I mean, I don’t know what there is to litigate. If Paul is treating people of a particular gender presentation in a specific, poor way that he doesn’t treat people of other gender presentations, that is definitionally sexist, and it’s a more egregious offense in the workplace than simply being an ass.

          1. LK*

            Exactly, and if Paul is only doing it to certain groups of people, that proves that claiming not to understand how to behave is disingenuous at best. If Paul truly didn’t understand the problem with their behaviour, they would be doing this to everyone.

          2. Starbuck*

            This whole vibe of “it’s hurting his feelings too much to name his bigotry so just stop doing that” is really gross and sad. LW is describing what is clearly sexist behavior and Paul choosing to argue with that really only proves the point.

            Someone who can’t handle being told to stop a specific sexist behavior clearly does not belong in the org.

        2. A*

          Not calling it what it is makes it a lot harder to address though

          “I asked Bob, Joe and Adam and they don’t see any issue so it must be in you and Glenda’s heads!”

          If you can’t be clear about where the issue is you can’t solve it and you leave people able to tell themselves they just don’t get on with ‘difficult’ people. If the difficult people are anybody who presents more feminine than you and dares to have an opinion you really can’t solve it without addressing the gender issue

          1. Sloanicota*

            Right. Taking the actual factor out of it makes it harder to see. I’ve experienced this before. “Certain people don’t get promoted, but that’s the way it goes! Half of people at this level DO get promoted!!” – vs “there were six men and no women promoted from the coordinator role in the past five years.”

            1. Observer*

              Taking the actual factor out of it makes it harder to see.

              It depends on the problem. Sometimes you really need to name the pattern, as in the example you provide.

              But in a case like this, the behavior itself, when spelled out clearly, is bad enough that it needs to stop.

              That’s not to say that calling out the pattern is necessarily a bad thing, but in a case like this you really don’t need to litigate the question of whether he is “being sexist or not”. Because regardless of his motivation he needs to stop this particular documentable behavior. Oh, and additionally the fact that he “happens” to do this only to (perceived) women creates a disparate impact. That’s a problem, isn’t it.

              1. MigraineMonth*

                I disagree for this case. This is supposed to be a social justice-oriented community organization. The organization needs to be able to handle *gently* stated issues such as “pattern of sexist behavior” head-on or it is failing in its core values.

                1. Observer*

                  Of course they need to be able to handle the situation. And I agree that failure to do so is failure to be faithful to their mission.

                  But, that’s true whether he “means” to be sexist or not. Being so rude to people that they get driven out of the organization is already a failure. Doing so in a pattern that targets a particular group just makes it that much worse. And that is true regardless of his motive.

                  In my opinion, this is a *perfect* place to deploy the “impact vs intent” idea. Because the bottom line is that his impact is atrocious and the organization has a greater than usual responsibility to deal with that.

              2. Calamity Janine*

                but then you have to think about in terms of results…

                …how much are people going to trust a social justice organization that refuses to acknowledge bigotry and whitewashes over it with “just don’t be a meanie”? because “don’t be a meanie” does sweet diddly against systemic bigotry. it means the group as a whole becomes toothless – intentionally giving up fighting bigotry in order to go along with the myth that bigotry is merely a matter of individual people being meanies. it broadcasts loud and clear “hello, we’re a social justice organization who doesn’t actually believe the justice needs to be social and we won’t have your back if you experience it”. that won’t stop the bleeding – that will make more people leave because of Paul and how Paul is not a problem to the organization.

                it’s tempting to go for the “easy win” of “just don’t call it sexism and he’ll listen!”, but it will be a move so actively detrimental to the organization that it will make things much worse. that will be giving people a concrete reason to give up on the group, not a reason to stick around.

                1. Observer*

                  it’s tempting to go for the “easy win” of “just don’t call it sexism and he’ll listen!”,

                  But that’s not what people are suggesting. What they are suggesting is calling out the bad behavior then imposing consequences if (or when) that behavior does not change. And also pointing out the pattern.

                  I think that it’s important to call out that this is simply unacceptable behavior. Period. And that if the behavior is unacceptable, you simply cannot get away with it, whether or not you* are doing to “just” to women or not.

                  It’s worth noting that in terms of systemic issues this can also be a better approach. Because very often when the issue is systemic, the motive is not necessarily bad, even if the problematic issue originates with bad motives. And certainly, the motivation of the people going along with that problematic system are often not bad. But it’s *still* a problem of effective bias that needs to be addressed.

                  To take a really good example that I heard about – a company was looking at the fact that their hiring was racially out of kilter. They actually engaged a consultant who didn’t call them racist, but asked them what schools they were looking at for their new grads cohort. Changing that made a huge difference in their hiring numbers.

                2. Calamity Janine*

                  my point here is more that part of the results, if you never call out the thing for which it indeed is, will be that people go “oh… this organization thinks X is just personal stuff. they don’t take X seriously. they don’t want to name the behavior properly, and want to treat it like interpersonal conflict. i cannot trust them to help me with matters of X, and this calls into question how well they’re actually going to fight against Y and Z, too.”

                  in other words, if the consultant said the problem wasn’t racism and was simply recruiting differently… how comfortable are the POC seeing that response? is refusing to call it racism useful, or a concession that they believe not scaring racists is more important than fighting racism? what will the company do when the problem recurs in a different context? will they actually listen to POC, or will they discount the issue by not being willing to call the racism, well, racism? is this now a safe space for POC to feel like the racism will actually get addressed?

                  or did the POC see a company that only fixed it when an outside consultant cajoled them into change by making sure the racists were as comfortable as possible and absolutely not describing it as racism?

                  the behavior is unacceptable, sure. but part of naming the pattern is, well, naming the pattern. you can’t really put the better virtue on “don’t say what the pattern is” because unfortunately that is making it more about the comfort of bigots than actually getting bigots to change.

                  the organization is all about naming the those patterns appropriately. if they suddenly shy away from doing so, that’s not going to fix the problem – it’s going to torpedo the organization’s credibility. that’s the problem i’m getting at.

                3. spiriferida*

                  In a space where many participants may be trans, nonbinary, and otherwise genderqueer as this space seems to be, bad actors will take different tactics to avoid being called out on their bad behavior. Not calling it sexism would be attempting to circumvent one more avenue of rules-lawyering that people like Paul can and will take, where they claim their behavior can’t possibly be sexist because they’re not a man and the people they’re directing it towards aren’t women.

                  Arguing with Paul over the ins and outs of sexism won’t fix anything, either – but whether they call it sexism or not, Paul’s proven that he’s not capable of sufficiently changing behavior, and so the thing that actually stands up to systemic bigotry here is removing him from the group.

                4. Observer*

                  @Calamity Janine

                  in other words, if the consultant said the problem wasn’t racism and was simply recruiting differently… how comfortable are the POC seeing that response?

                  It was a black consultant, and from what he said, it really wasn’t actually racism at play with the hiring issue. That didn’t change the fact that their hiring was bad and needed to change. But it meant that he was going to get much better results by pointing out how to fix the problem rather than pointing out how stupid they had been.

                  or did the POC see a company that only fixed it when an outside consultant cajoled them into change by making sure the racists were as comfortable as possible and absolutely not describing it as racism?

                  Except that that’s not what happened. They called the consultant of their own accord, and they didn’t need any “cajoling” to change their hiring practices. They just needed guidance. It was like what Alison says about management being something that a lot of people wind up doing without any real training so they do what comes natural which is not necessarily the best way to manage. Something similar was going on – these were not people trained in recruitment in general so they just kind of recruited haphazardly. But they realized that something was wrong so they called the guy in. And his first question was what does your hiring vs interviews look like, and that was OK. So the next question was “So where are you recruiting from” and that’s where the problem was.

                  It was one of those situations where it’s so obvious once someone points it out that you can’t believe that you missed it.

                  but part of naming the pattern is, well, naming the pattern

                  I don’t have a problem with naming the pattern for the most part. But there is a difference between saying “This keeps on happening to women but not men” and saying “You are being sexist.” Stick to the first one, and leave the second alone.

    2. Beth*

      OP isn’t tying this to Paul’s masculinity, just to his pattern of sexist behavior. If he’s specifically targeting the rudeness and dismissiveness towards people he perceives as women/feminine/femme-leaning, then yeah, sexism is at play. That’s an additional and significant problem beyond the behavior itself–even if Paul stops interrupting specifically, he’s probably going to continue to show signs of his internal prejudice, and that will continue to be a problem for the organization. OP is right to name it and ask for action.

      Paul is the one saying, I’m not attached to my masculinity, I can’t be sexist! And that’s just untrue. We know people can be sexist regardless of their gender identity or presentation. This response makes me think that Paul cares more about deflecting any accusations of wrongdoing than about actually improving his behavior.

      1. goddessoftransitory*

        Exactly.

        The OP is pointing out sexist behavior; Paul is insisting there’s no sexist elephant in the room because he “isn’t attached to his masculinity.”

        Which is A) like saying the house isn’t on fire because it’s painted blue, and B) clearly disingenuous, because Paul is waving his masculine privilege in everyone’s faces like a teddy bear soaked in Axe body spray.

    3. Ex-Teacher*

      That’s the big thing I noticed.

      Paul says he doesn’t understand how it could be sexist because*he’s* not attached to masculinity, but his gender identity and /or sex isn’t what makes something sexist. For example, if you had a C-suite of all women, and they only assign the planning/snack/cleanup duties to the junior women employees and not to the junior men, that’s still sexist.

      And honestly, Paul doesn’t have to understand how or why his behavior is perceived as sexist in order to stop doing it.

      1. I went to school with only 1 Jennifer*

        This is the thing. He doesn’t need to understand *why* something is a problem, he just needs to understand that it *is* a problem. Which means believing people instead of arguing with them.

  4. NotRealAnonForThis*

    A list without consequences (i.e. parting ways with Paul) really isn’t going to do much.

    If the powers that be want it, I’d document the “rules” and boundaries that you’ve laid out, but I’m not sure I’d be expecting much if they weren’t willing to dismiss Paul for being a horse’s arse.

    1. pally*

      Thank you! Exactly!

      There’s nothing in place to enforce said rules. And, Paul will be quick to exploit any perceived loopholes in the rules with excuses like:

      “I thought I could criticize when there was no third party in the room as the rules didn’t specify this.”
      or
      “I can interrupt everyone else- just not the OP -as the rules didn’t specify.”

    2. JustCuz*

      Why don’t the powers that be implement a general code of conduct and then … hold everyone to the same standards? Behavior is something people are expected to control and to have control over in order to be allowed to work with others.

    3. Another Anon*

      “The powers that be?” It sounds like this is a case of “the powers that aren’t.” There does not appear to be much of a structure to this organization (and I use the word “organization” loosely. At least not enough structure to decide who can and can’t be a volunteer. Without fundamental changes to this structure, there will eventually be worse problems than Paul.

  5. Fnordpress*

    “Other autistic people in the organization don’t have this problem” does not preclude Paul from being autistic. It is a spectrum for a reason.

    At least *try* the written list. If it doesn’t work after, then fine, you did your best. But to be honest, I’ve been in queer groups where I was Paul, and people sneered at me saying “I’m not attached to my masculinity” because I just happened to look too “male” for their standards. And I really am autistic, and really would need a written list if somebody was this upset with my behavior all the time. I struggle not to talk over people of any birth assignment; it’s something I work on, I actively try not to interrupt others, but I could see someone being upset that I talked too much or something like that.

    Of course it’s possible Paul really is just lying or being selfish, or is otherwise a sexist in some way. But the letter writer seems actively skeptical of Paul being neurodiverse *or* gender variant. It feels like a BEC situation.

    Also, even if I weren’t Paul, if I knew that asking for accomodations like a written list would get people mocking me behind my back, that would also make me feel unsafe as a disabled trans person. Again, I am remarking on Paul as a person, maybe they really are awful. But at least give them a fair shake before you assume they’re being autistic and gender-variant specifically as a social play.

    1. Trinny or Susannah*

      Hmm. If it weren’t for the other people who have already left, citing Paul, I might agree. But in this case it does sound like Occam’s pointing at ‘Paul really is awful’.

      1. bamcheeks*

        I think it could be “Paul is really awful” or “this organisation isn’t going anywhere until they figure out how to deal with Pauls”. If you’re a community organisation that wants to be inclusive, you do have to figure out a way of making space for people who aren’t good at being in groups, and sometimes that takes some pretty robust management to make sure they are neither excluded nor pushing other people out.

        I think it’s good to have some mechanisms for asking people to leave, but they shouldn’t be the only option. Paul’s request for some clear rules isn’t that off the wall, and it makes sense to try some more active management of his behaviour first.

        1. Grith*

          Is the actual *goal* of the organisation to include Pauls? If it is then yeah, they really do need to push the idea of making space as far as they possibly can. Because if they don’t, they whole point of the exercise is in doubt.

          But if not, we’re drifting towards the paradox of tolerance here. If Paul continues to be awful and continues to be allowed to be awful to be around, people are going to stop wanting to be around him. Which means your “community organisation” is well on it’s way to being a community made up of an ineffective board of leaders wringing their hands about why they’ve run out of volunteers, plus Paul being on the ground and being an ass to anyone who comes near.

          1. bamcheeks*

            The paradox of tolerance isn’t really something you can “drift towards”, is it? It’s a fundamental set of decisions and practices you need to make for any group of humans. Every group will have some conflicts, and will need some processes for resolving them and some hardlines about unacceptable behaviour. Every group needs to either make some conscious decisions about how much diversity of thought and behaviour they want, and therefore how much energy they’ll need to invest in addressing unproductive behaviour and resolving conflicts, or find those practices happen without conscious decisions. But there is no “norm” for the correct amount of diversity and tolerance that keeps you at the non-paradox end of the pool. You are making decisions about who to include and who to exclude either way: you can just do it consciously or not.

            1. JustCuz*

              I have worked with folks of a variety of disabilities as I have worked with companies who manage workers with disabilities. I also have been very close to people who work in residence homes with people experiencing disabilities and have spent some time around that environment. It is my understanding that they have to establish and maintain very hard-lines on who is able to work with others and who is not, who needs extra supervision and who does not, and etc etc.

              SO, yes I agree. If the organization isn’t existing to meet a community with Paul’s specific needs and it isn’t an organization that has the foundation, policies, and procedures in place to manage workers with disabilities, then the org needs to either decide they want to do that or they need to set behaviors REQUIRED as part of the job/volunteering roles. And I will be honest, a lot of the most disruptive behaviors are things like interrupting, being required to have things repeated to you many times, being able to take feedback and improve, working cohesively with others, respecting people’s space and time, listening. And it sounds like these are all requirements of Paul’s role, and really we all aren’t suited to do every single type of job in the world. There is nothing wrong with setting behavioral requirements for a job or volunteer position.

        2. Ys*

          If Paul types’ way of not being good at being in groups includes being rude and sexist, it’s okay to not want that in your organization.

          1. bamcheeks*

            It absolutely is if that still enables you to meet the organisation’s goals. But there are some organisations where simply excluding people who are rude or sexist would be entirely self-defeating because it would mean excluding much of the population you want to work with, and in those settings you have to have a much more nuanced way of challenging and managing behaviour. I don’t know what kind of organisation LW is talking about, but if everyone assumes it’s one where you can simply exclude anyone who isn’t behaving the way someone would behave in a professional job, that might not be very helpful advice.

            1. Andromeda Carr*

              There is that, but then the organization really has to consider who they will lose if they prioritize keeping sexist members. That is often a part left out of the equation, who gets lost or who never joins because they look at the organization and see its support for sexism.

              1. Hannah Lee*

                You’re right.

                Because at a certain point, being inclusive of people like Paul who are being rude, sexist, non-collaborative means that you are an organization that is purposely *excluding* people who will not tolerate rude, sexist, obstructive behavior in their co-workers.

          2. goddessoftransitory*

            This. Behavior has consequences, and it’s his behavior that’s driving people away from this organization.

        3. Beth*

          In OP’s shoes, I would love to get support from other members of leadership here. If the organization is committed to keeping Paul, could someone Paul looks up to step in and buddy up with him? They could help him adjust and learn in real time and offer mentorship around working with others; it would also take the burden of ‘solving’ his behavior off of OP, who has already tried to address this without success.

          I’d also love to see concrete follow-up actions and a planned timeline for action following OP sharing this written list. Maybe there should be a plan to move him out of a leadership role if the situation doesn’t improve? Maybe the organization could direct Paul towards less collaboration-heavy work?

        4. Observer*

          Paul’s request for some clear rules isn’t that off the wall, and it makes sense to try some more active management of his behaviour first

          Yeah, but asking the LW to write that list of rules that only applies to interactions between these two is not the way to do it!

          I do think that the LW should create that list, but I don’t think that it’s at all the best way to handle the situation. Because the odds of this fundamentally working is low. And either Paul gets pushed out or women keep getting pushed out. The latter is *definitely* not inclusive. And if Paul actually has something like neurodivergence that *can be managed* going on, failure to manage appropriately is also not inclusive.

        5. So Tired Of God's Specialest Princesses*

          Really? It’s not that off the wall to need a list of rules for how to behave professionally in your conversations with people when you have at least one person continually calling specific behaviors out as inappropriate?

          Absolutely not. Paul should not need a list of rules for how to speak politely and professionally when interacting with others in a work or volunteer setting. That is basic “being an adult human” behavior, and in the corporate world, Paul would risk being shown the door for asking. Just about anywhere with enough employees and sense to have an HR department would expect Paul to already know how not to be a complete jackass.

          I don’t know if I pity Paul for how terrible their parents must have been that they never held them to any kind of politeness standard throughout their life, but Paul can figure this out on their own damn time, like the rest of us. And they can certainly try to stop negatively impacting a volunteer org’s mission by driving people away.

    2. Lisa*

      Being autistic wouldn’t give him license to be a jerk. I don’t care if he is or not, he’s driving people away and his behavior is fundamentally inappropriate.

      1. A. Lab Rabbit*

        Yep, I was reading this letter and before LW even mentioned it, I thought “Paul sounds like he could be autistic” but I also thought “his behavior still isn’t acceptable, though.”

        It’s a spectrum, not an excuse. Paul needs to do better, and this organization needs to do better.

        1. JustCuz*

          And autistic people are still capable of caring. Paul has a caring problem. Paul has an accountability problem. Autistic people are still people and all people are capable of feelings of entitlement and internal “isms”.

          1. Part time lab tech*

            Absolutely. Caring and accountability are lacking here, irrespective of autism. Make sure rules lawyering is against the rules too! To get along, we all compromise on the second tier stuff we want and so can he.

        2. Teacher Lady*

          I had the same thought. There was an ongoing situation at my workplace in the recent past where we had to do a lot of reckoning with “Coworker A and Coworker B both have disclosed their ADHD diagnoses in the workplace” and “Coworker A and Coworker B present very differently despite having the same diagnosis” and “Coworker A’s behavior is acceptable, even if it differs from others, but Coworker B’s behavior is not acceptable because it is harmful in X way and needs to change in Y way to avoid further harm.” I feel like I gained many valuable insights about neurodiversity in the workplace as a result…and also that, ultimately, there needs to be leadership that is willing to uphold acceptable standards for behavior with reasonable accommodations.

    3. Lacey*

      ” Sometimes, I also get long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations.”

      It kinda doesn’t matter if Paul is sexist or neurodivergent. This isn’t acceptable behavior and it certainly isn’t BEC territory.

      1. Fnordpress*

        I missed “expletives,” specifically, in that list. I agree that swearing at people is pretty unambiguously unacceptable.

        I stand by my belief that OP’s description of Paul set off warning-bells for me as a trans person. Even in the comment section there are people saying “Paul’s ‘they’ is writing checks the ‘he’ can’t cash,” so clearly something about the OP resonated with people who are skeptical about NB identities.

        Again, none of that is an excuse to swear at people, but I think it’s fair for me to say “look, let’s not get into personal attacks about Paul’s identity.”

        Also, you can’t tell who’s AFAB and who isn’t from looking, so for all we know Paul is AFAB and some of the women he’s talking over are AMAB! We just don’t have enough information. I don’t comment this type of thing on every single post, but in a space that seems to have lots of trans people, this is a pertinent and important point. I’m not just sealioning or trying to bring up annoying irrelevant things. We can critique trans bad actors without ceding ground to, “well of course the boy nonbinary is talking over the girl nonbinary” type rhetoric.

        1. Cosmic Crisp*

          My god, this. Paul sounds infuriating, but this comment section isn’t much better today.

        2. Insert Pun Here*

          OP and Paul may know for certain that the people Paul is targeting are AFAB for any number of reasons, including that they transitioned while involved with this group, or that they talk openly about it, or that they had a public profile within the community before joining this org, or whatever.

          1. Blueberry*

            And the point is that Paul appears to be targeting people who *they perceive* as AFAB. If that’s true, then it doesn’t matter if they’re right or not – their actions would be motivated by misogyny either way. Hell, that can even be the case if Paul themself is actually AFAB.

            It’s similar to how the ADA covers both disability and perceived disability. If you suspect your employee is disabled and you deny them opportunities because of that, you’re in violation of the ADA even if they turn out not to be disabled.

    4. Socks*

      I don’t think the LW is doubting Paul’s relationship to their own masculinity, but that they’re skeptical of it as an argument for why Paul can’t be being sexist (which is a reasonable thing to doubt, given that plenty of women are also misogynists).

      I (a woman) also struggle not to interrupt people, but if someone tells me I interrupted them (or I catch myself interrupting), I apologize. I don’t insist it’s impossible to understand what their problem is. Plus, struggling not to interrupt people is one thing, but sending “long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations,” is entirely different.

    5. Roland*

      > I struggle not to talk over people of any birth assignment

      Well, Paul seems to struggle with this specifically in situations where the person being talked over is, or is perceived by Paul as, a woman. So that’s a pretty different situation.

      1. Sloanicota*

        Yes, I assume the letter would be different if OP said “Paul talks too much / rambles / interrupts but it’s not targeted at any specific demographic” and I think people would be more understanding in that circumstance.

    6. Emily (not a bot)*

      I don’t think it matters how much of this is in good faith from Paul. There’s no context in which letting someone interrupt to this degree and drive others away is a reasonable accommodation. Some spaces can’t be made safe for everyone, and an organization which picks the person who interrupts rather than the people who don’t want to be interrupted — they can make that choice, but they’re still making it and living with the consequences regardless of whether he’s able to stop or not.

      1. Observer*

        I don’t think it matters how much of this is in good faith from Paul. There’s no context in which letting someone interrupt to this degree and drive others away is a reasonable accommodation.

        I think that this is at the heart of the problem. And no one in the organization seems willing to take a good hard look at this reality and deal with it realistically.

    7. AutisticAnon*

      It sounds like the letter writer has been pretty clear and direct with their requests already, so I’m sceptical that a list will make much difference. Either Paul is ignoring the requests, or he is facing challenges that may mean it’s not appropriate for him to be in this kind of leadership role. Either way, if he is unable or unwilling to change, he needs to go.

      Paul may or may not be neurodivergent, but right now he’s being an asshole. Autism is not a free pass to treat other people badly, especially once they have made you aware that the behaviour is hurting them. Source: am autistic.

    8. constant_craving*

      Even if Paul is legitimately neurodiverse, how he’s behaving is not ok.

      I have ADHD. It is not on the people I interact with to make sure I’m organized and on time and all the other things that ADHD makes harder. It’s on me and whatever care team I may be working with to make sure I have the proper tools I need. Certainly reasonable accommodations can be made, but it’s reasonable for those accommodations to assume that I’m putting in some basic amount of effort.

      If this were something where the social rules were nuanced or complex or specific to the organization, a list makes complete sense to me as an accommodation. But when we’re talking about things like “don’t scold all the females that you interact with,” that is in the realm where if Paul is having difficulty he needs to be working with a professional on basic social interaction rules.

      Given that he only targets females with these inappropriate behaviors though, I think this is less an “autism” thing and more a “jerk” thing.

    9. whatchamacallit*

      I don’t think they’re questioning if Paul is autistic or not because other autistic people don’t behave that way, I think they’re highlighting it’s insulting to other autistic people in the organization for Paul to use autism as an excuse for bad behavior.

      1. Silver Robin*

        This part ^ LW specifically says they feel Paul is weaponizing the (potential) diagnosis as an excuse for his behavior and for dumping all the emotional labor of fixing the conflict on LW. Add to this that the pattern appears to be gendered and LW is pointing out that the other autistic folks at this *social justice oriented* org seem to be perfectly capable of not being sexist. LW is trying to separate the sexism from the autism and nip the “well maybe he is neurodivergent” argument that always happens.

        Sure, Paul might struggle with social cues, but then the issue would be wider spread; less gendered. And if the struggle with social cues or conversation dynamics is creating an environment where multiple others are leaving…Paul needs to shape up or ship out. This feels like a classic Geek Social Fallacy.

        The advice is still do make the list and write it in good faith so that the mediator knows LW is doing their best to make things work, but what effort is Paul putting in here? Where is Paul’s mortification about having caused distress and harm to other people?

      2. Blueberry*

        That was my read too. They’re not doubting Paul’s diagnosis; they’re doubting that his diagnosis has anything to do with the way he’s acting. (And even if it did, it still wouldn’t be acceptable.)

    10. AutisticAnon*

      It sounds like the letter writer has been pretty clear and direct with their requests already, so I’m sceptical that a list will make much difference. Either Paul is ignoring the requests, or he is facing challenges that may mean it’s not appropriate for him to be in this kind of leadership role. Either way, if he is unable or unwilling to change, he needs to go. The organization needs a way to make that happen, or to find a place for him where his behavior won’t be disruptive to the point of driving people away.

      Paul may or may not be neurodivergent, but right now he’s being an a**hole. Autism is not a free pass to treat other people badly, especially once they have made you aware that the behaviour is hurting them. Source: am autistic.

    11. Venus*

      I know a lot of autistic and neurodiverse people. Some of them also happen to be awful, not because they are autistic but it does make the situation more complicated if they point to autism as their reason for being awful. I don’t think the problem is that Paul is on a different part of the spectrum, rather he has other personality problems unrelated to, but complicated by, autism.

      Everyone can make their own choices, but I’ve decided that I don’t have to spend a lot of time and effort to support the autistic jerks in my life. Instead I focus my limited social energy on those of us who don’t always understand social cues but want to learn how to do better.

    12. I'm A Little Teapot*

      My assumption is that if a person is told “when you said/did x, that is unacceptable”, then a person who is acting in good faith will then make efforts to not do or say x. Even if they don’t quite understand it. A person who does not make good faith attempts is thereafter assumed to be doing it deliberately, and thus has earned whatever consequences come their way.

      This applies to people with autism. I understand they may struggle to understand, but it is possible to attempt to understand while also not doing the thing that they were clearly told is unacceptable. And I’m happy to attempt to help them understand, even if the ultimate answer is “it really doesn’t make sense and isn’t logical, but doing it is still going to make a lot of people mad”.

      1. Blueberry*

        Agreed. And there’s a big difference between “I have a hard time with [specific thing] and it would be really helpful if you did [specific action],” and “Please make me a list of all of my behaviors that you want me to change.” The onus shouldn’t be on the aggrieved party to name the issue and come up with a solution.

    13. MigraineMonth*

      I don’t think OP is at all skeptical that Paul is autistic. I think that they are skeptical that they cannot help but interrupt, criticize and disregard specifically AFAB people just because they are autistic. I’m pretty sure obscenity-filled email rants aren’t an essential part of autistic culture.

      When you interrupt someone, and they tell you that you did so, do you acknowledge what you did and try to do better? Or do you deny, double-down, and demand they explain it to you in a way you agree with before you’ll try to change your behavior? A written list or explanation of why behavior is harmful are reasonable when all parties are acting in good faith, but it’s also a pretty well-known tactic for exhausting targets of sexism or racism who find themselves in an endless loop of justifying their feelings to someone else.

      1. Blueberry*

        Yes. If LW is at the point where they’re calling out Paul’s behavior multiple times a week, then “I don’t understand what I’m doing wrong because the information wasn’t presented to me in bullet-point format” seems pretty disingenuous.

    14. Artemesia*

      Don’t interrupt and scold are not subtle directions. A guy who continues to do this is acting in bad faith when he asks for a list. I would only play this game IF the organization agreed to remove him from the group if post list he continued with the behavior.

    15. JustKnope*

      Paul is not being mocked for asking for a list. OP is questioning the utility of a list, because the OP has already been very direct, multiple times, in the moment of the conflict, about what Paul is doing wrong. Paul is not in the dark here about what the problems are with their behavior.

      1. Pescadero*

        I think a list is completely worthless ***for Paul***. He’ll just rules lawyer.

        I think a list is completely necessary – for all employees. You need to have written standards, and you need to have written processes to deal with violations of those standards.

        Having no behavior rules, and no processes for people who violate them – is no way to run anything.

    16. Beth*

      I don’t have the same read you do. Someone who consistently “interrupts, criticizes, corrects, scolds, and dismisses folks who were assigned female at birth,” and has already driven multiple people from the organization specifically because he acted in a sexist way and the organization didn’t handle it, is a problem. Even if OP was skeptical of Paul’s gender identity or neurodiversity, that’s not BEC, and it’s not mockery to call it out. All signs point to the organization having a genuine Paul problem.

      I also don’t see OP doubting Paul’s gender identity or neurodivergence. I see them saying “not being a man/not being attached to masculinity doesn’t mean you can’t be sexist” (which is true–anyone of any gender can be sexist) and “autism doesn’t cause sexist behavior, so being autistic wouldn’t explain this problem” (which is also true–yes, neurodivergence can make it harder to learn social cues and that can lead to people being perceived as generally rude, but it doesn’t cause people to target rude behavior at one specific group).

      I think you’re giving Paul a lot of benefit of the doubt because you have some common ground with him. That’s understandable! But I don’t think the facts of the letter actually warrant that generosity.

    17. Xeniati*

      As another autistic trans person, I think you might be reading things into the letter that aren’t necessarily there. I didn’t read LW as saying that Paul isn’t really autistic or isn’t really [whatever their gender is]; what I saw was them expressing frustration that Paul is pointing to their relationship to masculinity or the autism diagnosis they’re seeking as a way of saying “see, there’s nothing wrong with my behaviour.” As other commenters have noted, masculinity and one’s attachment to it have little to do with whether or not a certain type of behaviour is sexist. I do see why LW’s comment about other autistic people in the group not behaving this way pinged you wrong, but again, this behaviour is, in LW’s account, specifically sexist in nature – autism is a spectrum, yes, but I don’t know of any presentation of neurodivergence that makes people behave shittily to people of some genders and not others. That’s still just sexism, regardless of how Paul’s neurodivergence is inflecting it, and it’s something it sounds like Paul needs to work more actively on fixing.

      I’ve been in a lot of situations, including community organizing situations, where people have told me I’m too loud, too wordy, too pushy, etc., and it’s sucked, especially because those are facets of myself that I associate with autism. But if I was interrupting and talking over and undermining people of some genders and not others, other people would be 100% in the right to tell me that I was being sexist. (I’d also want them to tell me that, frankly! That’s something I’d want to fix! Especially in a community organizing context!) In the hypothetical scenario where they told me that, if I said, “Well, it’s because I’m autistic,” I would be acting like a jerk, because autism has nothing to do with sexist behaviour. LW isn’t questioning Paul’s neurodivergence or gender, they’re arguing (correctly, IMO) that those things are beside the point.

    18. Elle*

      Here’s the thing- you can object to a behavior regardless of its cause. As an Autistic person, I get this. When I know something is a problem for Most People, I make an effort to avoid or mitigate that behavior. Having to leave functions to avoid overload, or stimming, cool- I’ve got mitigations for things. But talking over and second-guessing the knowledge of people of one specific gender is not something that there is a mitigation for.

      You are pretty clearly taking the LW’s language in bad faith, while also reading good faith excuses into the descriptions of Paul’s behavior. Definitely something to consider.

      1. Fnordpress*

        I tried to indicate that I was taking the LW in good faith by clarifying that I am aware Paul could very well be the problem. I can see I’m in the minority with my belief, but I was just disagreeing, not being bad faith at all. Worth thinking about

        1. EventPlannerGal*

          Commenter “Six for the truth over solace in lies” made a really great comment further up about the both-sides-ing tendencies of many community groups:

          “Because of that, “both sides have things to work on” reigns supreme. In cases where one side really didn’t do a single thing wrong, this winds up being something awful like “Pat, I know that Alex stole your printer, but it didn’t help that you got angry about it and brought it up at a staff meeting. Can we all agree to resolve disputes calmly in the future?””

          This is kind of why your comments are coming across as bad faith. The OP has presented a long list of bad behaviours that seem to be directed towards a specific group, have driven several members out of their org and are making OP miserable. Being like ‘well Paul COULD be the problem but the LW gives me BEC vibes’ feels a bit like that. That goes double when the vibes in question are coming from the LW just recounting Paul’s own response to sexism being raised as a possible issue. I’m not trying to give you a hard time here, I just wanted to clarify a bit since you’re getting a lot of pushback which I appreciate is stressful.

        2. Calamity Janine*

          with all gentleness, i think that your premise here is a bit off the mark because…

          well, “maybe Paul’s autism is just different!” is both 1. ableist and 2. not really applicable.

          it’s ableist because it’s playing into this strange idea that we cannot have a lick of empathy, and that autism means you are simply too stupid to know better. (and by ‘stupid’, well, insert your slur of choice. i am sure you know *many* that get applied to us.) it is a strange sort of infantilizing behavior that robs us of our humanity as soon as someone notices we’re not neurotypical. we cannot be held to human standards, so we must be pandered to as subhuman. we are poor wee lambs, not… humans who get to be fully human, with lives both multifaceted and rich with detail. personally, i like being a human instead of a failure-of-a-human.

          and it’s also not applicable because… Paul has already received the list. Paul has already been told what to work on. Paul knows exactly what to stop. Paul has been told this many times. Paul is given reminders like “don’t interrupt” on a near-daily basis from the LW, it seems, and not all of them have been solely verbal. if all Paul needed was a list – if all Paul needed was to be told – then… they would already be on top of this. if Paul needs additional support, fair dues. but it’s out of the wheelhouse of what laypeople can do for them. the request to the LW is to waste their time doing a thing that already has not worked, in the hope that Paul will magically understand this time. if Paul truly does need additional support and help in this matter, then doing the same thing that already hasn’t worked isn’t a kindness. it’s setting them up for failure, the same way it would be setting someone up for failure if they needed a wheelchair and suddenly got dumped out of it for a day. “well, sure, you weren’t able to walk yesterday, but we thought we’d just make you try again, and anyway we’re taking your wheelchair away now :)” isn’t helpful, right? so then why are we expecting Paul, if they do have needs that cannot be met by laypeople, to just willpower their way through something similar?

          so sort of ableism two ways at the end there, since setting Paul up for failure with a heaping helping of The Thing That Doesn’t Work also sucks.

          unfortunately, ableism doesn’t become cool if we do it first. it just means it sucks more because we catch ourselves in our own crossfire. if Paul is truly struggling, doing more of what doesn’t work and dismissing their struggles as “BEC” isn’t cool of you and is just more ableism. if Paul isn’t truly struggling, then it’s just more ableism by way of assuming that Paul is incompetent and dehumanizing them for this. you can still do things in good faith and end up pulling the pin out of a grenade and then throwing it straight in your own trench.

          to be… blunt while also trying to be kind… i think you saw way too much of yourself in Paul here and assumed all of your trials had to be Paul’s trials. the thing is, you’re not exhibiting a pattern of sexism the way Paul is doing. you also are actually receptive to being told these things. please give yourself some credit here. you are willing and able to put in the work, and your frustration is when people don’t want to give you the chance. Paul has been given the chance, multiple times. Paul is given the chance multiple times a week. Paul has declined every single time, after being given numerous fair shakes. you are allowed to be proud of the progress that sets you apart from Paul! you do not have to see someone failing in these arenas and assume that you are equally loathsome!

          and you certainly don’t need to dismiss real concerns as ‘BEC’ (which, i know we’re used to the term, but it does become a bit more loaded when we’re talking about someone who demonstrates sexist behavior and doesn’t want to work on that and you look at the person affected by this sexism to write them off as ‘oh you’re just having a bitch eating crackers moment’! incidentally, this is kinda why your arguments are coming across as in bad faith – like, we’re all glad you didn’t say ‘hysterical’, but also, it’s a bit of a yikes), or end up complicit in your own dehumanization by tossing around some ableism.

          it would be easier if we didn’t internalize this stuff, but here we all are, yeah? you don’t need to wear sackcloth and ashes and punish yourself for past awkwardness by assuming a pretty bad scenario must be exactly like you in the past.

          1. Blueberry*

            and it’s also not applicable because… Paul has already received the list. Paul has already been told what to work on. Paul knows exactly what to stop. Paul has been told this many times. Paul is given reminders like “don’t interrupt” on a near-daily basis from the LW, it seems, and not all of them have been solely verbal. if all Paul needed was a list – if all Paul needed was to be told – then… they would already be on top of this.

            This exactly. I have a feeling that if Paul were to receive such a list, they’d just come up with new standards that LW suddenly isn’t meeting:

            “The list says not to interrupt you in meetings, but you didn’t define what a meeting was, so I didn’t realize this counted.”
            “The list says not to interrupt you in meetings, but you defined a meeting as ‘a group discussion’ and this is more of an informal chat than a discussion.”
            “The tone of the list is overly critical, and I can’t process feedback if it’s not delivered gently.”
            “The tone of the list is too soft and wishy-washy, and I can’t process feedback if it’s not delivered very directly.”
            “The list is too long and detailed; I need concise and simple instructions.”
            “The list is too short and vague; I need more thorough explanations.”

            …and so on and so on.

          2. Fnordpress*

            You are assuming a lot about me that isn’t true. I feel upset that my comment made others angry or upset, but I can’t delete it. I would like to ask that you refrain from making a bunch of personal statements about me as a person though.

            1. Swiss Army Them*

              i don’t see any negative assumptions about you as a person in their comment? are you taking offense at them saying that you don’t behave in a sexist manner at work? it’s disingenuous to ignore the entirety of their (measured, fair) comment and focus on a “personal statement” that is, frankly, very kind and mild.

              1. Fnordpress*

                I didn’t say they were negative assumptions, but there is a lot of familiarity in the comment about what I supposedly do or think. I’m sure they didn’t mean to, but it came off (to me) as condescending.

    19. Lokifan*

      I don’t get any sense the OP is doubting Paul’s gender! they’re saying Paul’s being sexist, and Paul is the one tying that to their masculinity by saying he’s probably being sexist as he’s not that attached to his masculinity. I don’t think OP’s implying that Paul’s sexist behaviour casts doubt on their gender, because there’s no suggestion in the letter that OP thinks the two things are connected.

    20. e271828*

      If Paul finds he is attracting constant complaints in his dealings with other people, Paul is the person responsible for seeking guidance on changing his behavior and implementing it. Paul is in charge of Paul. The people Paul is mistreating have the choice to leave and I would encourage all of them to take it. Pauls destroy organizations and prevent them from being effective.

    21. Blueberry*

      LW has already given Paul a fair shake. They’ve talked to them privately (it sounds like), they’ve called them out in the moment, they’ve escalated the issue to others in the org. It’s gotten bad enough that they’re calling out Paul’s behavior multiple times a week, with no sign of improvement. I don’t think the issue here is that LW didn’t give Paul enough of a chance to do better.

      I’d feel differently if Paul’s initial response had been something like, “I have a hard time picking up on social cues and I don’t always realize when I’ve crossed a line. I’m working on that, but it would also help me a lot if you could be really direct with me about this going forward.” But it sounds like it was more like some combination of, “hmm, I don’t see the issue” and “it’s your fault for not being clear enough” and “sorry, autism, can’t help it.”

  6. Dawn*

    Were I you, I would be planning to leave this organization – and making sure on your way out that the senior people, whoever those are, know that you are leaving explicitly because of Paul’s behaviour and the fact that there is nobody with authority to manage it, and that you’re not the first volunteer leaving for this reason.

    To quote: “Your (organization) sucks and isn’t going to change. I’m sorry.”

    1. Sashaa*

      I agree – honestly OP, the energy spent on “making a water-tight list that Paul can’t rules-lawyer” could also be spent dusting off your CV and finding another organisation to volunteer at. And the second option is far more likely to be successful, from what you have said.

    2. Hannah Lee*

      Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I agree that OP taking steps to move on is the only real solution for them. Because this organization doesn’t seem to have a mechanism to limit the negative impact of Paul or other Pauls who may wander in at some point. It stinks when it’s an organization where the stated mission is a worthy one, but Paul (and the lack of behavior standards in the place) are systematically eroding the group’s effectiveness carrying out the mission.

      If OP’s honest, over the last month, how much time, effort, emotional energy, resources have gone into trying to deal with Paul and the issues Paul causes … the work that didn’t get done because they drove people out, the meetings about important stuff that got derailed by their interrupting, ranting, monologuing, being disrespectful of other contributors, the stuff that didn’t get done, or got rushed to completion because of time wasted strategizing how to keep Paul from derailing things, pointing out when he was rude, discussing whether or not Paul was actually rude, Paul distracting from the mission by rules lawyering, making others explain and reexplain how exactly he was rude and unprofessional this time?

      If suddenly Paul was taken out of the equation, how much better would the organization be able to meet its goals, fulfill its mission? Whoever is heading this group up, or the steering committee or whoever is choosing to let Paul continue being Paul and not rein him in, and as a result is guaranteeing the group is going to be less effective than they could be otherwise. Is it really worth OP’s time, effort, to waste what they have to give in service of an organization that’s choosing to let the Pauls of the world submarine them, keep them from working for their missing?

  7. Lette*

    Rather than a list of rules for Paul to follow, couldn’t this be reworked into a Code of Conduct for everyone in the org to follow, and include the consequences for not following the Code?

    1. Fnordpress*

      This is a really great idea that I think might lessen the resentment – it’s not “doing homework because Paul can’t get a clue,” it’s making standards of behavior explicit (which helps everyone as a curb-cutting effect)

    2. bamcheeks*

      I really like this idea, although I would do this in addition to the “rules for Paul”. If Paul’s problem really is that they needs super specific and clear rules, the rules for Paul are probably going to be too clear and specific to use as a Code of Conduct. But I do think having a clear CoC with consequences is a good idea, and then linking the Rules For Paul into that. So your Code Of Conduct says: “Treat others with respect. Resolve problems by each listening to the other’s point of view, and speak to someone in leadership if you can’t come to a consensus.” The Rules for Paul say, “Treat others with respect. This means not interrupting, and if you do interrupt by accident, say sorry, let the other person speak, and let them come to the end of a sentence before you speak again” or whatever.

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        Or position it as providing guidance on the rules that apply to everyone, just to ensure clarity and understanding for Paul. The rules are the same for everyone, and here is more information on how to apply them.

    3. wickyj*

      I agree. We have a “rules of engagement” for my team (7 people). Though I brought some to the table as the manager, we developed them together and agreed on them as a group. If you can employ some positive peer pressure (‘hey, didn’t we all agree not to interrupt?’), that might be more convincing than a tit-for-tat where he justifies his behavior each time.

      I’m not sure there’s much hope for this particular person, but the rules of engagement have been helpful for even a well-running team.

      1. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

        This is something I’ve heard recommended for teaching in colleges / universities. When the group comes up with the rules together, you’re more likely to get buy-in from the members of the group.

        1. allathian*

          Heck, in my son’s elementary school the kids drafted the class rules themselves every year! The teacher gave a framework to ensure that the classes followed more or less the same rules but the kids came up with the exact wording. It helped ensure buy-in from the kids.

          1. Blueberry*

            I did this with my students when I was a teacher! It’s a good exercise, and sometimes the kids give really cute and funny responses.

    4. Gudrid The Well-Traveled*

      And in addition to consequences, outline the support the organization will provide to the person or group experiencing the poor conduct. A friend of mine is a coding boot camp instructor and teaches primarily online. One class she had a problem student who was disruptive and she had little recourse. There wasn’t a code of conduct, she tried muting him and he overrode it, and she didn’t know how to get help in that moment from boot camp management. It supports everyone to have plans for these situations even if they’re rare.

    5. Just Thinkin' Here*

      I like this idea. It’s overarching so anyone else who comes along has to comply as well.

      Can I also say, this is why you need a Board, even for small non-profit and community organizations? Because this behavior needs to have someone who can hold others accountable and that’s what a board is supposed to do.

      1. Part time lab tech*

        As someone who is a member of a not for profit with a board that has gone rogue, make sure there is a dissolution clause for the board. Also, Natural justice guidelines for the board to follow so personal dislike doesn’t overtake good sense governance.

    6. Blueberry*

      I think a written code of conduct is a good idea for any organization, but I would treat it as entirely separate from the Paul issue. If Paul thinks that the list of rules was (ostensibly) made with everyone in mind, then you run the risk of him thinking that he isn’t the problem. You also run the risk of the people it’s not directed at thinking they did something wrong and the rules were created for them.

      1. Blueberry*

        Ah, sorry, didn’t mean for the whole second half of that last sentence to be in italics.

  8. hiptobesquare*

    As someone who has left an organization they cared deeply about because of one bad man that most of the leadership was enabling…

    IT SUCKS A LOT.

    But it was 100% the right thing to do.

    2. Venus*

      Completely agreed that it’s the right thing. In my case the irony is that the leader eventually encountered all the same problems and then pushed that person out, but doesn’t understand why we won’t return. She doesn’t seem to understand that when she initially kept choosing that problem person and not acknowledging our problems, she showed that she isn’t likely to make good decisions in future so we don’t trust her enough to return. Part of the problem is that this person is older, and wouldn’t have made the same decision previously, so I know there is an element of changing personality due to age and health problems. Sucks a lot but there aren’t easy solutions.

  9. AnonymousOctopus*

    Get Paul gone. Your group likely has much loftier goals than gentle-parenting a sexist and you’re currently using *way* too much energy dealing with Paul than on your org’s purpose. As someone nonbinary who gets typical AFAB sexism thrown my way, I’d be dropping your group so fast for not ejecting Paul.

    He wants a list? Fine, but only if the org enacts a mechanism for removing counter-productive people. Then give him the list and when he inevitably sends another absurd rant, kick him to the curb.

    1. Golux*

      So sure, fine, if he needs with a list, start with a list.

      But would it be possible to record your meetings / calls with him (if you have access to Zoom or Teams or somesuch) so you could share these recordings with others who maybe don’t understand how egregious the behavior is? Then you can show them exactly what you’re dealing with. If each meeting is set to autorecord, so much the better.

      Or can you have an (unbiased) third party also join the meeting?
      At one point, this actually helped tamp down a higher level person’s dismissive/difficult/uncooperative behavior in my situation.

      1. LW who is not necessarily going to write a list*

        A lot of interactions hap9en over text message, and Paul will go back and quote my texts at me to prove I wasn’t clear enough, and also dramatically misrepresent my requests. So, for example, my text “I’ve asked you not to message me about this” gets the reply “when you said ‘I don’t want to talk about this’ how was I supposed to know you meant ‘never communicate with me again’?” The record is there, and Paul does like to go back to it. But not in good faith.

        1. Observer*

          The good news here is that this actually proves your point to anyone acting in good faith. Because you did not say “never communicate with me again” you said “I’ve asked you not to message me about this” and the message he is quoting is saying the same thing!

          The fact that leadership is acting like he’s “making a point” is proof of bad faith on their part, not a problem with your messages or the record backing him up.

  10. Juicebox Hero*

    A jerk is a jerk, regardless of gender or neurodiversity. I’m sure your communication is perfectly clear; Paul is pretending to be confused so they can deflect the blame onto you when called on their jerkiness, putting you on the defensive and think YOU’RE doing something wrong. You’re not. Paul the jerk is.

    Whatever you do, including writing him a list of rules, Paul will find a way to rules-lawyer and skate right up to the edge of the line just to be a dillweed, because that’s what jerks do.

    Alison is right. You and the rest of your group’s leaders need to come up with a way to get rid of the Pauls of the world before they chase any more of your membership away with their jerkiness.

    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Agreed. A few years ago I said to a psychologist friend that my dad is probably autistic and that would explain why he can be kind of a jerk sometimes. She replied, “Just because he’s autistic doesn’t mean he’s not also a jerk.” Her point being, autism is not an excuse for being a jerk, nor does autism automatically mean you are a jerk. This was eye-opening for me and now I have little patience for my dad when he is being a jerk.

      I’m unclear here if Paul requested the list or if it’s just that the other person suggested it as a good solution. Regardless, a list of rules isn’t going to make a jerk stop being a jerk unless he’s had a major change of heart (not going to happen) or consequences of breaking those rules are enforced (which seems unlikely). If Paul requested the list, then there’s a tiny chance of him actually following the rules but if it was just the colleague’s suggestion, then I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of Paul paying any attention to the list whatsoever.

      Is this group part of a larger organization or is it just a small community group for people affected by the same issues who have banded together to fight them? Is there any way you, OP, could start your own group or take the folks you do enjoy working with and branch off into a new group? This would be if there was no way to boot Paul out, of course.

      1. Blueberry*

        My read was that the other org member suggested it, but Paul was on board with the idea. (Not surprising, since I imagine Paul would be on board with any solution that isn’t “hold Paul accountable for his actions” or “fire Paul.”)

    2. some dude*

      One of the downsides I’ve seen of the left’s embracing of identity politics is the way that bad actors can weaponize the tendency to want to elevate or lionize marginalized groups. A jerk is a jerk, regardless of their race, sexuality, gender identity, or ability. I really wish we as a country were better at calling out jerks who are members of groups we identify with – we might be in a very different political situation.

  12. Lacey*

    Paul wants a list in order to figure out how to be rude in ways that aren’t on the list.

    It’s fine to make one and (as others have suggested) tie consequences to it.
    That way it can be helpful to you.

    But don’t be surprised when a person who has already shown a love of loopholes, delights in finding new ones to exploit.

    2. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

      Yup, the rules lawyering is likely to be at least as exhausting and frustrating as the current scenario. But it might be the only way to get other people in leadership to see what a problem this is.

      I’m curious, LW, have you communicated that this issue is getting serious enough that you might leave over it? Or at least that you cannot continue to work in an environment like this?

    3. I can’t spell annonymouse*

      It’s why my classroom list (developed by middle schoolers) had a main bullet followed by examples an acknowledged limited list of don’ts and dos:
      “Don’t be rude/do treat people with respect—this includes, but is not limited to:” main bullet was followed by “Not interrupting or talking over others, but actively listening and raising your hand to be called on to respond”; “not raising your voice, but speaking in a conversational tone of voice—even if you have to take a deep breath/count to 10 before saying something.”

  13. LeftistMomFriend*

    We had an adjacent sort of issue in a group I organize with. The leadership eventually held the person accountable, but it was WAY too late and so extra messy. However, once they did that hard work of conflict and boundary setting, the organization has really grown and it’s been awesome to see how it pays off to create a culture of accountability in orgs.

  14. CB212*

    Honestly if Paul’s takeaway is that he’s being accused of sexism, which he feels can’t be right, don’t include that in the list. He can’t interrupt ANY colleague, correct, scold, dismiss ANY colleague. Let the rules be universal. It sounds like he already succeeds in the correct behavior with men, so we know he can do it. (…In theory.)

    When all the people leaving over this, or simply on the receiving end of this, are still women, you can certainly take that to the Board, who should care (a lot!). But take the gender-watch off Paul’s plate so he can’t try to litigate the target population with you.

    1. Pocket Mouse*

      A note of caution about conflating AFAB and “women” – demonstrably not true! While it’s not explicitly stated, there’s ample reason to believe the LW does not identify as a woman. We have no hint as to the identities of the two who already left.

      Paul’s behavior is sexist. Paul treating AFAB people as if they’re women when dishing out his sexism, even when those people are not women, is the transphobic topping on the sexist cake. Please don’t validate even part of Paul’s behavior!

      1. Zona the Great*

        Right but federal discrimination laws specifically include language like, “perceived to be”. So one does not need to be a woman to be perceived as one and therefore discriminated against. One does not need to be a part of the community they are being accused of being through adverse action and treatment for it to be protected.

        1. Pocket Mouse*

          Yes, absolutely – I was commenting on CB212’s sentence including the bit “When all the people […] are still women”, when the LW’s question indicates they are not a woman, despite very much being on the receiving end of Paul’s sexist behavior. Paul’s behavior equates AFAB=woman; commenters here can support the LW (and the trans/NB community in general, here on Trans Day of Visibility!) by not making the same mistake.

    2. Observer*

      you can certainly take that to the Board, who should care (a lot!).

      Absolutely! Because even with volunteers, there may be legal implications. And with the public, there will *certainly* be implications if the actual reality ever becomes public. That’s bad regardless. But in a social justice context? If you are dealing with a community that’s acting in good faith, this kind of thing would totally destroy the organization’s credibility.

      But take the gender-watch off Paul’s plate so he can’t try to litigate the target population with you.

      Agreed. But make sure that the list is clearly “Do not do X to *anyone*. And one time is too may”. Because one of the things you don’t want him to try to rules lawyer is if he did it “too often” or not.

  15. night cheese*

    There is a special place in hell for men who (at best) co-opt or (at worst) weaponize the language of social justice to either excuse or enable continued shitty behavior.

    1. Ezra*

      We don’t know if Paul’s a man, for the record. And “misusing” is not necessarily co-opting. Paul could very well think these concepts protect them.

      They’re a massive jerk and need to be dealt with, but framing the situation as a man deliberately co-opting social justice concepts rather than a queer person misusing them seems like a soft denial of Paul’s identity/queerness.

  16. Abe Froman*

    This feels a lot like the Geek Social Fallacies, and I think a social justice organization is likely to fall prey to them as well. If people are operating under the assumption that we can’t “ostracize,” we have to accept people as they are, Paul is doing is best so we have to keep working with him, etc., it will excuse a lot of pretty terrible behavior. Allison is of course correct: Paul has chased off 2 volunteers and will likely chase off many more. If he cannot commit to change his behavior and then follow through, he has to be removed for the good of the org and everyone in it.

    1. Grith*

      Yeah, I remember a letter about a board game shop/group or similar, and them eventually having to get rid of someone who couldn’t behave. It’s a great case study for how being firm can feel harsh, but is often the right thing to do.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yup, I said as much in another thread below this and posted the links to that letter and its follow-ups.

    2. Admin Lackey*

      Yeah, I had the same thought and I think that queer people can be very susceptible to falling into the Geek Social Fallacies, for the same reasons as geeks.

    3. goddessoftransitory*

      Once any group is having to invest this much energy into managing one member, its original reason for being is moot. It’s so frustrating to watch a Paul manipulate peoples’ genuine desire to be welcoming and kind for their own endless game of Gotcha.

    4. e271828*

      Paul has alienated two volunteers that OP knows of. How many people are not committing or not engaging at all because of Paul? Word gets around…

  17. Clara*

    I feel like the rules would just be a hot bed for malicious compliance from Paul. If they walk like a jerk, quack like a jerk… focus on you and what would best help your peace. It wouldn’t be great to leave, but there may be a tipping point where it’s better than staying.

  18. Grumpy Elder Millennial*

    Not the biggest problem here, but does the organization have clear roles and responsibilities? When Paul gives instructions to someone that are contrary to what you’ve already told them, is the whole thing more complicated and frustrating because it’s not clear that this is part of your role, LW? The fact that there’s no formal process to part ways with a staff member suggests this might be the case; the expectation is that you’re on the same team, working towards the same goals, and will end up in sync somehow. It doesn’t solve the larger issue of Paul interrupting and chastising you, but clarity on what is your job and what is Paul’s job could make it easier to push back, for example, when he goes giving instructions to people about projects he’s not in charge of.

  19. Delta Delta*

    Maybe it’s because I’m in a different field, but this feels bananas. Paul doesn’t need a list of bullet points about how not to be have like a jackwagon (to borrow an AAM word from the other day). Paul needs to behave like an adult human. The organization needs to recognize that Paul is a bit of a broken stair, and needs to either let him go or continue bleeding talent, and potentially hurting its own long-term reputation for being an org that placates a jerk.

    Sadly, it seems like OP’s smartest move is to leave. OP shouldn’t have to write a list of ways to make Paul behave. He either won’t do it or he’ll argue that he is (when he isn’t). The org doesn’t seem to care about Paul’s misbehavior.

  20. Jay (no, the other one)*

    Does your org have a harassment policy? I think all orgs need one and this is one of the reasons why.

    Two years ago I was tasked with revising the harassment policy for a community org I’m involved in. We had a vague policy that dated from the inception of the org and the way it was written would have made removing a violator essentially impossible. I thought I had three months to work on it and submit the revision to the annual meeting – and then we had a report of sexual harassment including physical contact involving one of our founding and most active members. I revised the policy in about three days and it was passed by an emergency meeting of the Board. It including a clause protecting people from retaliation, and after it was distributed to the membership we had three more people come forward with reports of the same guy. In the end there were six women that we knew about. We (my committee of three) spent three weeks interviewing the women and one man who had been present at one incident, presented our recommendation to the Board, and he was removed from the org with no option for return. When word got out, two women returned to the group who had left because of him.

    It is possible – and in my opinion vital – to have effective harassment policies in volunteer/community orgs. In our case the policy’s existence and specific structure created an environment of safety that encouraged people to come forward.

    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Ooooh, this is a very good point. Even volunteer orgs need harassment policies – the org I occasionally volunteer with has one. Jay is absolutely correct that OP’s org should write one up.

      1. goddessoftransitory*

        When people start an organization they don’t want to think they might attract bad actors–“we don’t need to worry about sexual harassment/racism/fill in the horror here! We all have the same lofty goal!”

        But of course people like that can and do slime their way into any and all types of work and volunteering–often to bolster their image, ironically enough. So having a very, very clear policy that everyone is explicitly told about from the get-go is vital.

  21. Someone Else's Boss*

    I wonder the LW might have more success if they don’t assign reasons to the behavior. For example, instead of saying it’s rude to interrupt female presenting people, just say it’s not okay to interrupt your others while they’re speaking, and he needs to watch that behavior. Sometimes people get hung up on not wanting to fit into a box (or just not believing they do). Has anyone had a straight conversation with him about the fact that people who leave cite him as the reason and his behavior needs to change so you stop bleeding help?

    1. HR Exec Popping In*

      I agree. It is always better to clearly state the specific behavior and not assign it to intent. Intent is always up to interpretation and can deflect for the issue. And frankly intent doesn’t matter. Maybe the intent is because he thinks people with brown eyes are idiots so he interrupts (vs. women). Doesn’t matter – the problem is the rude behavior.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Yup, 100%. I too wonder if anyone else has told him he needs to stop this behavior. Unfortunately, the Pauls of the world seem to respond better to criticism if it’s coming from someone who doesn’t fall into the category(ies) that Paul appears to be targeting. So yeah, someone else at the org other than OP needs to tell him to stop, but it sure doesn’t seem like anyone will, does it?

  22. Endless TBR Pile*

    Like others have said, I feel that Paul wants a written list so that he can willfully misunderstand the intent behind it. But, I think NOT doing it makes you seem difficult, OP. So, I’d make up the list and be as exhaustingly specific as possible. Include on there that these rules do not apply just to you, but all members of the group regardless of their position on the org chart (ie – he can’t be mean to employees who report to him or are beneath him just because he’s “in charge”). Include language about it applying to everyone regardless of age, sex, orientation, race, etc etc. Discuss it with Paul and this moderator, and then ALL of you sign it.

    And then, yes, have a conversation with the leadership team about implementing a process to help volunteers move along if they are not in line with your mission’s core values. Explain that having one negative person can impact the rest of the staff and cause them to leave.

    I’m sorry this has all fallen to you, OP, and I wish you much luck getting this resolved.

    1. Zona the Great*

      If Paul needs a list, they need to start it themself. They cannot tell others to take responsibility for them.

      1. Observer*

        Do you want to be right, or do you want to be effective?

        The LW does not want to leave the organization. Given that reality, their best chance of improving things is to write that list while having the other suggested conversations.

        1. Calamity Janine*

          is it actually effective for the LW to do busywork that they know doesn’t work, in order for the organization to continue looking at this problem as just an interpersonal spat between two individuals that they can largely ignore? because the LW has been nominated for the role of Paul Wrangler, and i don’t think they are going to convince the org that the problem isn’t “oh that’s just Paul, you know how they are, they just need to be wrangled better, so that’s why it will be LW’s fault going forward because the LW didn’t write a list of rules good enough for Paul…”

          1. Observer*

            is it actually effective for the LW to do busywork that they know doesn’t work, in order for the organization to continue looking at this problem as just an interpersonal spat between two individuals that they can largely ignore?

            Hard to say. But I think it makes it harder for the organization to claim that it’s a “communications issue”.

            To be honest, I’m not sure that there is anything that the LW can do that’s going to be effective, because I think that you are unfortunately correct that the organization *wants* to see this as an interpersonal spat that they can ignore.

            1. Calamity Janine*

              y’know, while we may have disagreed on method and utility of actually saying the word ‘sexism’ or not (and i will continue to harshly consider that any social justice movement that will crumble under the weight of actually using the word for the bigotry that’s happening is weak and will not survive the winter, and should be treated as a practical and ruthless wild mouse treats the weakling of her litter that has no chance to survive – you shove that out into the snow and you save the milk for the ones that have better odds)…

              i think, with more evidence from the LW, we’re now perfectly agreed on the practical point of what on earth the LW can do to fix it. which is nothing.

              there’s plenty of genuine discussion about, say, what method of CPR to employ to revive a patient, but we’re two doctors looking as our patient is being rolled in and noticing that’s not a guy from just outside. it’s Ramses II. who has already been embalmed for centuries. a preference for one of the swish CPR machines or personnel taking turns ain’t gonna work when the dude’s heart is actually in a canopic jar. it would be great if our various perspectives would be relevant here and the debate was us having a disagreement on methods that could actually work, buuuut yeah the time of death here is gonna stay at 1213 BC. we extend our sympathies to Mrs. Ramses II aka Nefertari (and Mrs. Ramses II aka Isetnofret and Mrs. Ramses II aka Maathorneferure and you get the idea). we both wish the disagreement was going somewhere else far more useful but the patient’s just come in a couple of millennia too late LOL, and i think this is where we probably shake hands and go “well doctor, we did what we could” to each other. if only our knowledge was actually steel sharpening steel for a useful purpose!

              (hoo boy are those additional details from the LW some *doozies.*)

    2. Great Frogs of Literature*

      Yeah, I agree. If OP wants to remain with this org, I think they need to come up with a list (or I like the suggestion earlier of having the group come up with a list of norms, and providing a secondary document with more detail). I don’t see the list so much as FOR Paul, but rather for the other org members, to show that OP is willing to work to improve the situation, and Paul is not.

      It sucks that that means that OP winds up with a whole pile of extra work, but if they don’t put in that work, the optics of the situation (for a lot of folks, anyway) will be, “Paul made a reasonable request, but OP got huffy and refused to do it” — leaving the unresolved problem on OP, rather than on Paul.

      1. Zona the Great*

        Asking someone else to create a list of behaviors that are unacceptable for another to commit is not at all reasonable. They can do it as a committee for a org-wide code of conduct but not for one specific problem-person.

    3. Kevin Sours*

      “I’d make up the list and be as exhaustingly specific as possible. Include on there that these rules do not apply just to you”

      This is a recipe for Paul to come back and complain that everybody is breaking the rules and it’s not fair that he’s being targeted. Drawing up an exhaustive list of rules that can be applied clearly without nuance or interpretation is an impossibility. Which is why the Pauls of the world demand that you do it. It’s one thing when you are dealing with somebody trying in good faith to correct their behavior who is just not getting it, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here (and if it is then it’s likely that Paul needs help beyond what OP is qualified to provide).

      You cannot document your way around bad faith.

    2. Butterfly Counter*

      OP said he/they.

      Which from my understanding, when referring to Paul, people should use both. Not exclusively “he,” which is what a lot of people here are doing.

      I know, personally, working “they” into my language is an ongoing process and the rules still seem so new. But I’m trying.

      1. Venus*

        Typically she/he/they means either are acceptable.

        I use both, and specifically put in my signature that I want official documents to use ‘they’ or no gender, whereas either works well in conversation and other situations. I work in a male-dominated workplace and try to minimize references to gender as much as possible in official documents. For example, in meeting notes I want to be referred to by my more gender-neutral name and not Mrs X.

    3. bamcheeks*

      LW said he/they, and used “they” throughout. But the comments are definitely leaning towards he and also calling them a man.

    4. Beth*

      OP uses they/them pronouns. Paul uses he/they.

      In general, when people use multiple sets of pronouns, I think it’s kind to either alternate (so you’re using both “he” and “they” to refer to Paul) or use the ones that society is less likely to use for that person (“they”, in this case).

      In this specific situation, where ‘they’ is easily read as referring to OP, it makes sense to me that people are using “he” to refer to Paul as a way to make it easier to distinguish them. I hope most people aren’t assuming Paul is a cis man; it’s pretty clear from the letter that everyone in this letter is queer.

  24. CityMouse*

    Because my parents both work in fields with ND kids I have spent a lot of time around kids with autism and it is just so tiring when people try to take advantage of “I’m a jerk and I don’t have to do anything about it because I have autism”. It’s inaccurate and the stereotype is harmful.

  25. Ms.Vader*

    I hope we get an update with this one. I saw red reading it because I’m constantly being told I’m overreacting to what is very clear sexism towards myself. By not strongly addressing this with Paul, the leadership is undermining the OP and validating Paul’s behaviour.

  26. HR Exec Popping In*

    I’m so sorry you are dealing with this. One thought I have is could the larger group (is this a committee or something) develop the values/behaviors you want the organization to demonstrate. That way it isn’t directly about one person and how they behave with you but establishes how everyone is to interact. Then you can reference that when Paul behaves in a way that violates that model with you or anyone else. (Paul, as our values state…). You can also, as a group proactively discuss how violations of these values will be treated. For example, repeated behavior that is not aligned with the values will result in the person being asked to depart the organization.

  27. Mesquito*

    Has your organization considered a consensus organizing training? Personally I think it’s crucial for any leaderless organization to have clearly outlined processes that are part of a consistent system to function properly, and each org doesn’t have to reinvent the wheel on this, there are people who can train you on established models of consensus and you can pick which one is right for your organization. You should also read “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,” which describes a lot of what you’re seeing and how to prevent it.

  28. Cat Lady in the Mountains*

    I work with a Paul in a job with very little accountability for bad behavior, and actually have had a lot of success with the written list as a mechanism of self-protection. In my case I worked directly with the offending person to come up with “communication norms” for ourselves. The offending person has violated the norms on a number of occasions since, but instead of that starting a long “they need to feel HEARD” process with our HR team, it’s allowed me to go right to “here’s what you agreed to, here’s how you violated it.” There’s still no real accountability in terms of the person losing their job or being performance managed but there’s a solid drumbeat of “this is unacceptable” that they have no ground to dispute, which has helped make the disruptions resolve quickly.

    2. coffee*

      Interesting to hear about how it’s working for you! Do you find you need (or needed) updates to the list over time?

  29. Daffy*

    This org will fail unless you can implement basic upkeep abilities such as removing problematic members.

    1. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Yeah, this letter reminds me of the one from the person who ran a gaming group with a problematic person who would come to game night and make others in the group really uncomfortable. That one was a success story because the LW asked about how to tell someone to stop coming to free events and AAM gave good advice, which the LW followed, and when the problematic person was given a second chance after improved behavior but then slid back into the bad behavior, the LW again followed AAM’s good advice and permanently banned the person from future events.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Here are those letters, btw, but I misremembered that the LW had written for advice. LW had written in to say they had followed AAM advice all on their own and only wrote in to share their success story. Anyway, if a gaming group can deal with a problematic group member, a social justice group should be able to deal with one too.

        https://www.askamanager.org/2022/09/dealing-with-a-problematic-member-of-a-board-games-group.html

        https://www.askamanager.org/2022/12/update-dealing-with-a-problematic-member-of-a-board-games-group.html

        https://www.askamanager.org/2024/04/update-dealing-with-a-problematic-member-of-a-board-games-group-2.html

        1. Calamity Janine*

          a really important thing for this LW to consider, looking at this previous case, is… notice how in the updates it is “now things are flourishing and we’ve never been more successful”!

          boundaries like this and enforcement of standards are not things to be scared of. it’s not a rejection, though it may initially feel like it, and even if some people who don’t want to follow boundaries will pitch it like a rejection. (not going to lie, i’m catching a vague and distant whiff of the Geek Social Fallacies here. “all ostricizers are evil” is a hellova thing to try and combine with social justice work – it leads to situations exactly like this, where bigotry gets cast as a ‘personal problem’ and nobody wants to point it out.) it’s rules like this that allow organizations to flourish. they’re not mean, they’re necessary.

          is Paul being there perpetuating injustice – driving people off, slinging insults, talking over people, etc. – something that the organization really wants to say is more important than seeking social justice? …was the board games group catering to one member who wanted to insult and belittle others and bully them more important than the board games group being a group for playing board games and having fun doing that? the answer is a pretty obvious ‘no’, i think. and the success that followed is really worth paying attention to, as is the very astute parallel between these situations that you pointed out!

  30. Zoe*

    And if autism is in play, the list could genuinely be helpful

    Ah hailllllll no. This is NOT an autism or any ND thing. Sending ranting, expletive-ridden personal attacks (either via email or verbally) is something that anyone can do, regardless of their neuro status. Being sexist and generally problematic, to the point of already driving off two other people, is not something he gets to hand wave away as “oh but I’m AUTISTIC” and the org shouldn’t let that slide (nor should the LW, just to be clear). NT people shouldn’t behave that way, either DUH.

    Paul’s “I can’t be sexist, I don’t even do Masculinity that much!!!” weak sauce argument is just that: super weak sauce. Boyfriend clearly has not heard of internalized misogyny among women, and how us women can sometimes be our own worst enemy in the fight for feminism. Idiot men like Paul aren’t helping though!!! (FWIW, some of the worst misogyny and sexism
    I’ve heard has come from gay men and trans women. Notall obviously, but like don’t act like it never happens).

    Anyway: Paul needs to be shown the door yesterday, the org needs written, clear guidelines both to prevent this from happening again (and what to do when it does), and the LW may need to cut their losses anyway because the culture rot may be too stuck in.

    1. inksmith*

      If Paul uses they/he pronouns, they probably don’t identify as a man, although obviously they may and their gender identity isn’t explicitly stated. But I’d hesitate in calling Paul a man” given the additional context (though their behaviour is still unacceptable, and still sexist).

  31. animaniactoo*

    Any list needs to come with an explicit qualifier that this is not an EXHAUSTIVE list of behaviors, this is a general guideline based on the behaviors he has exhibited so far.

    It should also come with as much context as possible. “Do not interrupt someone while they are outlining a process. Save any questions for after they are done speaking. Make a note if you are concerned that you will forget.”

    And a process for how to handle witnessing other people who violate the same rules that are going to be on his list.

    “If someone else violates a rule on this list, you are not to challenge that they have done so. You are to wait, and then later you may ask why it was okay for them to do that in that circumstance. Because sometimes circumstances will be different. Do not assume that because someone else did it, it is okay for you to do it because you have demonstrated that you do not understand the differences. When you have a firmer understanding of this, that may change but for now – just assume that they understand it and are being appropriate and ask for the explanation LATER, not in that moment.”

      1. goddessoftransitory*

        God, yes. And frankly it shouldn’t be on the OP’s plate. This organization sounds like they manage by playing hot potato and nothing else.

      2. animaniactoo*

        No disagreement there. But absent that, it is going to lead to an even higher level of hand-holding unless someone can be convinced that Paul is creating more problems than they solve.

        So if you’re going to do it, set yourself up for as much success as you can in doing it. And don’t expect it to work a miracle.

      3. Blue*

        Agree so much. I would never expect this amount of emotional labor in the workplace. This workplace seems like it has got a lot going on.

      4. MeepMeep123*

        Seriously. Does OP also need to specify “And if you need to pee or poop, please go to the bathroom to do so”? If Paul is an independent adult, he should be capable of behaving himself in public. If he is not, whether it’s due to autism or any other issue, he has no business working without an aide or supervision.

  32. Zona the Great*

    No, Paul. No one will be making you a list. As a grown adult, you’ll need to make the list yourself. One free tip is when you’re told you messed up, you write that down. And there you have your list.

    1. Artemesia*

      This. Making a list is just a way of drawing it out because leadership doesn’t want to lead.

  33. RhubarbCrumble*

    I dont think they are saying they are being gender variant as a social play.

    I believe if I read it correctly the OP brought up that Paul seems to do these disruptive behaviour more to people who present more towards female. And when brought up to Paul that Paul’s response is that Paul can’t be misogynistic because Paul isn’t that attached to masculinity. cis-women can be misogynistic. It isnt exclusive to male presenting people. and pointing that out isn’t the OP doubting Paul’s gender identity.

    I think you are seeing yourself and your own autistic struggles in Paul and it might be clouding things. I am also autistic. I dont send rants with profanity at colleagues. Go behind someone’s back to give alternate instructions to the person they are supposed to be working with not me. Or answer on behalf of someone with the wrong information. If someone points out that you interrupt a lot you would still understand that it’s a trait you have and could be a problem. I also do it. But its something we and Paul have to work on. Being autistic doesn’t give us a pass to interrupt. We operate differently yes but that doesn’t mean we get to step on people’s toes without their being consequences.

    The issue is that OP has said they have communicated boundaries and that Paul doesn’t respect/understand them. Its unlikely re-writing them is going to fix it. Though I agree that OP should try.

    1. Zona the Great*

      Sadly, most of the misogyny I’ve experienced in my professional life has come from women.

  34. Tumbleweed*

    Aside from what everyone else has stated, am I the only one speculating that the group in question is a mutual aid group? I only say this as someone who’s in mutual aid – it’s as grassroots as you can possibly get, so interpersonal conflict and lack of documentation to help tackle it can be a problem.

  35. AlwaysAssistant*

    I don’t understand – you gave him a list – if he wants it written down – why doesn’t he write it down? This seems like another job for you to do that shouldn’t be your job.

    1. Pete*

      The mediator suggested the list, not Paul. I am not sure if it means Paul is more or less likely to follow the rules.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Right, the mediator suggested the list, which leads me to believe that the mediator has no idea how to be a mediator.

        1. Observer*

          I think that you are right. Which is unfortunate. Because good mediators can make a huge difference.

    2. Slow Gin Lizz*

      Right? OP has told Paul what behaviors are problematic and need to stop. He shouldn’t need OP to engrave them in stone a la the ten commandments.

  36. Feral Humanist*

    This letter is giving me such flashbacks to my time in lefty professional spaces. Leftwing spaces can be profoundly sexist, and they also often have a hint of the Geek Social Fallacy, which is that in trying to make spaces inclusive, they allow members who drive off other members to remain.

    I had a Paul of my own toward the end of my time at this particular job. Fortunately, Paul’s was a one-year contract, so there was a limit on how long I had to put up with them. They would have turned any attempt to PIP them into a very unpleasant battle with the union, and they had the habit of adding their union rep to the email chain at literally the slightest hint of constructive feedback.

    And yes, the way they treated me was incredibly sexist. I had to explain to them once that when we were in a 1:1, they couldn’t simply announce that they had a lot to do that day, get up, and leave. They, too, used multiple pronouns (all pronouns, in that case). That did not change the coded sexism in the way they interacted with me. And it didn’t make them less of a glassbowl, either.

    LW, I think at a certain point (and you might not be there yet) either Paul goes or you go, and it sounds like Paul is not going to go. I don’t think the list is actually going to change ANYTHING, and I agree with others that he’s likely to rules-lawyer it. Whether you make the list or not, I think you should ask yourself how long you’re willing to put up with this if nothing changes.

    1. Observer*

      Whether you make the list or not, I think you should ask yourself how long you’re willing to put up with this if nothing changes.

      I think you are right. It’s unfortunate, because the LW should not have to be contemplating this. But there comes a point where it’s basically tilting at windmills. Which is ok in fiction, not so much in real life.

  38. goddessoftransitory*

    Sounds like Paul’s “they” is writing checks their “he” is refusing to cash.

    As this point, his *reasons* are immaterial. Whether or not he is neuroatypical, whether or not he’s weaponizing any diagnosis of such, how many lists you write or boundaries you set, his *actions* are driving people away and clearly targeting you to be next.

    It doesn’t matter how attached Paul is to their masculinity or lack of. It’s a source of power that they are utilizing, then throwing up a decoy of “but I use mixed pronouns!” to get away with it. Why he’s doing it just doesn’t matter.

    1. Fnordpress*

      “Sounds like Paul’s “they” is writing checks their “he” is refusing to cash.”

      This is a really ugly thing to say about non-binary people. Non-binary people can be jerks or unpleasant to work with; it doesn’t mean we’re lying about our genders or being duplicitous.

      1. Anon for this*

        It may be an ugly thing to say, but I, too, have encountered folks about whom I thought it. If they insist that they cannot be sexist because they’re nonbinary or genderfluid and use they/them (or mixed) pronouns but are treating the women and femme folks in their circle badly and refusing to hear feedback about it (and especially if they continue to present to the world as male, which means continuing to benefit from the assumption of masculinity regardless of their gender identity), then at some point I do start to wonder what the hell is going on. At the very least, they are not living the values one would assume they hold as a nonbinary or genderfluid individual, i.e. that people of all genders should be treated equitably and with respect.

        It is not really about questioning someone’s gender. The thing about jerks of all genders is that they tend to use whatever is at their disposal to further their own agendas. Gender can absolutely be one of the things they wield, especially if they know that it means they’re less likely to be questioned by the people around them because “it is a really ugly thing to say.”

        1. Andromeda*

          So I agree that it’s possible Paul is seeing certain features in people that are coded fem, and going “oh it’s ok to talk over them”.

          That has nothing to do with whether they’re a guy or not. We don’t really know to what extent they “present to the world as male”. Lots of people in this very comments section have described their worst experiences with sexism in the workplace as coming from (presumably) cis women!

          The reasons I think this really matters:
          1. I think as a group for social equity, you have to take into account that inequitable power structures can be upheld by people of all genders
          2. It explicitly goes against the mission of the group to treat Paul as “basically a guy” if they’re NB, even if they’re behaving badly
          3. Paul doesn’t need an only-Paul list. The entire group, particularly leadership, needs a Protocol For What To Do When Bad Actors Arise, and bad actors can be any gender
          4. Paul doesn’t lose claim to their NB gender just because they’re being a bad actor, and other NB folks in the group shouldn’t have to worry that they’ll be invalidated if they don’t adhere to the Strict Specific Standard Of Who Can Call Themselves Non-Binary

      2. Observer*

        In general, of course not. In particular? Given Paul’s behavior, I don’t think that it’s a stretch.

        Of course, reasonable people would never generalize that, though. *Paul* is being duplicitous- there is no doubt about that, whether it’s about gender or not. That has nothing to to with NB people as a whole. Just as people have been pointing out that Paul being on the spectrum and being a jerk at the same time sounds like weaponizing the diagnosis but that still does not mean that being in the spectrum and being a jerk are actually related.

    2. Cosmic Crisp*

      “It doesn’t matter how attached Paul is to their masculinity or lack of. It’s a source of power that they are utilizing…”

      I can assure you that not all forms of masculinity are a source of power, and you can express the sentiment that Paul is misunderstanding how sexism works in an infuriating manner without saying some really nasty things about people who identify with being masc.

  39. LW who doesn't yet have a list*

    Hi all! LW here, thanks so much for the great and thoughtful comments, and thanks to Alison for the helpful reply and publishing this. A lot of what you all are outlining here is what’s on my mind – is the list of rules going to be useful or just used for Rules Lawyering? Do I end up seeming like The Problem if I don’t do this? Others have asked really helpful questions – I realize I don’t know for sure that Paul wants the list, as it was a suggestion from a third party. I also really appreciate folks pointing out that (1) I have the option to leave, which I’m considering but (2) the org is really going to be undermined by this kind of thing. I’ve committed to shifting my energy to a part of the org where I’m not working as directly with Paul and I’m going to be reflecting on what is within my power (and capacity!) to do in terms of trying to help the org address this more structurally. Our group norms need to be updated and I wasn’t really part of that effort. Maybe that’s somewhere I could put my energy!

    It’s been really helpful to get affirmation that some of the things that seem really outrageous to me but that are being framed as mutual “conflict” are in fact not acceptable. I might not communicate clearly at times, but the long rants with personal attacks aren’t justified by that. It’s wild how Missing Stair situations become naturalized until one is blaming oneself for someone else’s poor behavior. If only I had set that boundary more clearly then these expletives wouldn’t be in my DMs!

    If I have time later today I am thinking of drafting a few bullet points of a “list” to run by this comment section to see what folks think!

    1. goddessoftransitory*

      This reminds me of a great meme I saw yesterday: a picture of black cat saying “I’m not bad luck. Your life was already shit.”

      This isn’t “conflict management,” Paul is being an ass, and the org’s leaders are refusing to do their job. He wants to feel listened to? He can make a recording of himself and play it back as much as he likes. Management wants a list? They can call a meeting and put together a code of conduct.

      NONE of this is your job, OP. They want to make it your job so they don’t have to do it/keep getting away with being a glassbowl.

    2. Beth*

      I’d be excited to see what you come up with! And to hear about how this goes for you going forward – this kind of thing can be so hard to manage in a volunteer-based community organization, where inclusivity is part of the goal and no one is really anyone’s boss but there are still behaviors that are unacceptable.

    3. Polly Hedron*

      If I have time later today I am thinking of drafting a few bullet points of a “list” to run by this comment section to see what folks think!

      Oh, please do!

    4. RagingADHD*

      Tell the list to Paul in the presence of the mediator, and tell Paul to write it down. Paul can do their own admin work. The fact that this mediator thought it was LW’s job to teach Paul basic manners or do Paul’s list-making, indicates that the mediator also has some serious work to do about gender role assumptions.

      – Don’t interrupt and talk over people.
      – Don’t send sweary, accusatory rants to people.
      – Don’t speak disrespectfully and dismissively to people.
      – Don’t scold people, especially when you have no legitimate authority to correct them at all.
      – Don’t presume to speak for people without consulting them and getting their permission first.
      – Don’t give instructions to people who are working on a task or project under someone else’s direction, particularly when those instructions are contrary to the original assignment.
      – Don’t make insulting personal remarks to people.

      Honestly, none of this is rocket science, and being ND or gender variant, or any other identity marker, is irrelevant. It’s thoroughly rude, dysfunctional, and unpleasant, no matter who is the offender or the recipient. The sexism of treating only people of one gender presentation / perception this way is just bonus – extra – awful.

      I anticipate that Paul will continue to claim that they have no self-awareness that they are doing any of these things, even when addressed in the moment. And then it will be time to find out whether anyone else in the org has the intestinal fortitude to get rid of the “missing stair,” or if they are just going to expect everyone else to keep hopping over it.

    5. Calamity Janine*

      may i suggest not writing the list until you can write it with concrete punishments for violations?

      if the org isn’t willing to have consequences, then the list is ultimately hot air. it’s better to not waste your own time on sound and fury that signifies nothing.

      if the answer is that you aren’t high enough in hierarchy to deal out the consequences? then you shouldn’t be writing the list. you can give them your concerns, sure, but if you don’t have the power to do the thing, don’t do the thing, y’know? it’s not in your wheelhouse to do.

      (i admit to being suspicious that at this point they will also not do it, and it will only be done if you accept the responsibility for being a Paul-minder without any of the necessary tools to do the minding. if you get that sort of answer, then ultimately this has always been a busywork assignment to waste your time instead of solving the problem – just like if you were a manager tasked with writing a PIP for an employee but told you can’t actually have any consequences for if the bad performance continues. then it’ll be time to head Alison’s past advice for situations just like that: your boss/organization sucks and isn’t going to change.

    1. Margaret Cavendish*

      We have the exact same list of rules for our kitten! The difference is, I expect the kitten will one day grow out of the need for such a list. Paul, not so much.

      1. Slow Gin Lizz*

        Eh, don’t be so sure about that. My first kitten never grew out of needing such a rule, though I didn’t actually implement that rule so maybe that was her excuse: “You didn’t explicitly *say* I couldn’t be a dick, Mawwwm.” Seems like Paul also is using this excuse: “Ok, you told me I couldn’t interrupt you or explain tasks incorrectly to people, but you didn’t say I couldn’t be a dick.”

      2. Beth*

        I actually think there’s a lot more leeway for cats to not grow out of this than humans. Cats can spend their whole lives knocking water glasses off the counter, and it’s annoying but also what we signed up for in having cats. No one signed up to work with a Paul!

    2. Lizzie (with the deaf cat)*

      I see codes of conduct everywhere – on the bus, hospitals, doctor’s offices, pubs, supermarkets – pretty much anywhere staff/volunteers are interacting with the general public. They are commonplace. So no need to reinvent a fancy new wheel – utilise their succinct language to make your list of how staff are expected to treat each other. The rules apply to everyone, not just Paul.
      The main problem for you, LW, is that your organisation has its head in the sand and is too passive to deal with this issue. I am sorry that is the case. I worked as a volunteer for years with a religious organisation (everyone welcome! Inappropriate behaviours -not a problem! ) which effectively drove away volunteers and clients/customers who were literally afraid of other clients/customers’ behaviours. I was unable to convince the higher echelons that at the very least we could put up posters indicating that we were not okay with rudeness and threatening behaviour – they said this would not be welcoming!
      Good luck to you, LW.

  41. A*

    I think the LW is asking other people to spend their cultural capital on Paul.

    This might not be worth it to them for reasons the LW doesn’t know. Asking other people to spend capital on you and your annoyance can be a valid ask and a valid denial at the same time.

    1. Observer*

      The primary problem here is that what the LW describes is waaaaay more that “annoyance”. It’s serious misbehavior that really needs to be stopped, even if the LW were the only one experiencing this. Given that at least 2 other people have left over this, and others are also suffering from this misbehavior, it’s really out of line to minimize it.

      Also, I can’t really think of any scenario where it’s legitimate to not deal with it.

  43. HelenaHandbasket*

    Be cautious about making a list of discrete actions. You can give me a list and I can follow it to the letter and still be a condescending glassbowl. If he continues to find new ways to be a jerk and you have to keep adding new behaviors to the list, there’s a really good chance you’ll end up looking oversensitive or over-emotional. Blargh.

    Outline a policy of respect for individuals. I’m sure you could find examples online or, budget willing, hire someone who can help with such a policy. My company requires us to take annual training which I call “Don’t be a Dick” training – because that’s pretty much what it is. All the ways you can intentionally or unintentionally be a jerk to your colleagues. They change it up each year, so each year I learn new ways to be a jerk (and then I do not do that).

    Set an expectation that everyone, regardless of gender, orientation, race, ethnicity, country of origin, financial standing, volunteer/parttime/full time, hair color, whatever is treated with the same behaviors and respect.

    And maybe since this is an ongoing issue, think about whether to assign a more senior person as the “equality coach” or “interactions guide” or whatever name you like during meetings; this person will be tasked only with listening to the nature of the interactions, not the topic, to call out if behavior is not meeting policy. it’s a burden but better to call it out with a “neutral” party that is only focused on interactions and can call it out in the moment.

    Lastly, talk with some of your colleagues about how to back one another up in the meetings. There’s a great anecdote about the women in Obama’s inner circle and how they started pointing out, in positive ways, how their ideas were getting dismissed or credited to others. “Wow Mike, I like how you’re supporting the idea Jen floated a moment ago. Jen, since you noted that earlier, can you provide your thinking on the matter?” and by the end of the first term the overall inner circle was collaborating significantly better.

  44. Observer*

    LW, it’s pretty clear that Paul is a problem. But I think that the organization is an even bigger problem.

    One of the reasons I think that is that even faced with at least two people who have left because of him, no one is willing to step up and figure out how to deal with him. I mean that list is not a *bad* idea, but I agree that given your prior communications, it is not likely to be helpful. Given that this is the *only* suggestion that anyone has and no one is willing to look at what happens if he won’t behave once he gets that list, it’s beyond lame.

    But also, the level of toxicity seems to have gotten to you. You say that he identified as “he / they”, but you refer to him as “they” throughout the letter. You seem to be going out of your way to avoid referring to him as “he”. It kind of feels like the level of nit-picking and second guessing has gotten into your head a bit.

    If you want to try to make this work, make that list but also talk to the people you trust about what next steps are. They have already put too much of the burden on you and they are also failing to deal with the larger problem. If you don’t get some good answers and the list doesn’t actually turn into a magic wand, you really need to think about leaving this organization.

    That’s a frustrating thought. But your mental health is worth something. And you’ll probably be more effective at an organization that doesn’t allow their volunteers to be mistreated this way.

    1. Not Gen Z*

      I’m a bit unclear on why you’re referring to OP’s use of they/them pronouns as toxic? Paul’s pronouns include they, so there’s nothing wrong with using they.

      When most people default to one set of pronouns for someone who uses multiple, I try to use the lesser used set more to balance out. The comments here are an example of the defaulting I’m talking about. I cannot imagine how this is a symbol of toxicity to you?

      1. LW who is not necessarily going to write a list*

        Yes, exactly — I’ll switch it up sometimes but since most people use “he” for Paul and it seems to me that they are communicating some kind of gender queerness, I try to use “they” mostly to try to balance it out.

      2. Observer*

        I’m a bit unclear on why you’re referring to OP’s use of they/them pronouns as toxic?

        My original response seems to have gotten swallowed, so I’m going to try to post something a bit shorter.

        I don’t think that the LW’s usage is toxic, I said that I think that the toxicity of the organization may have been getting to them. I hope I’m wrong about that part.

        I think we can agree that the organization is being toxic here, though. I mean they have allowed two people to be driven off by this jerk and Paul is also doing this to other female presenting people, yet the best that a “mediator” with some capital can come up with is for a contract between the LW and Paul on how to behave as though this is just a matter of the LW being “over-sensitive” or some such nonsense.

  45. JSPA*

    As essential as sexism may be for recognizing the pattern, it may be more productive to make a list of “how never to treat anyone.”

    NOBODY deserves to be talked over.

    Nor called expletives.

    It is never ok for him to silently ignore someone’s idea, then a few minutes later, put it forward as his own. (Yes, even if it took him 5 minutes to process, because there was a “perhaps,” a “given,” and a subordinate clause.)

    If he can’t make sense of an answer, he can behave like an adult who isn’t clear on an answer, and ask for clarification (or restate the question more clearly) rather than having a blame-fit that the words of the response were not pre-cut and pre-digested for his specific listening preferences. (“I must not be asking this right” is the respectful answer; “you must be an idiot if you’re responding to my question in a way that confuses me,” isn’t.)

    Interrupting (except maybe to say, “Slow down” or “Time Out!”) should be limited to situations where everyone is in “completing each other’s thoughts, because we’re so perfectly aligned” mode (which is very rare). Not because he glazed over, but can’t bear to admit that his brain is full, and he needs to take a processing break.

    Good alternatives: listen with the goal of correctly and fairly restating the other person’s point, while explicitly giving credit: “so what I’m hearing you say is…”

    If you’re fishing for a specific bit of information, it’s on YOU to ask for it, unambiguously; if that doesn’t work, you respectfully go in for another round, instead of manifesting frustration.

    If a situation is frustrating you, you do not have the right to take that frustration out on other people; they’re not in this world to avert your frustration response.

    etc etc

  46. Anita*

    If writing a list of ways for a man not to be a sexiest arse was an appropriate thing in the situation, which I question, it is something that should be done by a man.

    Teaching men not to be sexist should not be another burden for women to shoulder.

    3. Isabeautiful*

      That and anyone who is sexist-arse-ing against women (or those they assume are women) is more likely to actually listen to a man.

  47. Zappy*

    Does your organization have a written code of conduct? If yes, there’s the written standards Paul should be following right there. If no, time to write one.

  48. Madame Desmortes*

    While you work through dealing with Paul, there may be some meeting-conduct rules you can implement for everyone that minimize the damage Paul is causing.

    For example, the union local I belong to runs hybrid meetings. We maintain a “stack” of people waiting to respond to whatever’s going on, and the meeting facilitator runs through the stack more or less in order. In-person attendees raise their hand to be added to the stack; online attendees type “stack” in the chat.

    All-in-person meetings sometimes have a “who has the floor” physical token to pass between speakers. (One of my favorite task forces from a bygone time used a koosh ball.)

    In either case, it’s clear that speaking when you don’t have the floor is not acceptable. With any luck, a rule that clearly binds everybody can provide grounds for shutting down Paul’s interruptions.

  49. Crencestre*

    A PIP for Paul, please – like, yesterday!

    And you’re right not to accept autism as an all-purpose excuse for Paul’s rude, arrogant behavior. That not only slanders all of the other autistic people on your staff (and in the world!), it lets Paul emotionally blackmail you and everyone else in your organization into shutting up and letting him walk all over you. And that’s not helpful to anyone -including Paul himself!

  50. e271828*

    Paul’s victims cannot be held responsible for Paul’s behavior. They cannot be required to educate Paul and subject themselves to more of his behavior.

    If the organization doesn’t have a mechanism for removing volunteers or employees, it’s not an organization, it’s a badly-run club under Paul’s control. OP should consider whether the energy spent on this group would not be better spent furthering the cause in other ways, for example by leaving, contacting others who have left because of Paul, and setting up a functional organization.

  51. anononon*

    This sucks, LW. I’m sorry you’re dealing with this. I feel like I’ve dealt with similar stuff in hobby spaces before, where someone with a diagnosis (sometimes autism, sometimes not) uses it as an excuse for why they should not have to treat people with respect. It’s good that you’re being very direct with Paul — the ability and willingness to be direct is a good skill to have! — and it may be that they do need that to know that things they are doing are coming across as dismissive, etc., but you are right to note that the “long rants with expletives, personal remarks, and accusations” are inappropriate, and they almost certainly know that much and because of that I can’t extend them much benefit of the doubt. And, frankly, if they don’t know that expletive-laden rants are not appropriate, it doesn’t really matter why they’re doing it — they don’t belong in this organization. Blaming it on autism feels similar to their “I’m not that attached to masculinity” line — an adult, especially one engaged in social justice work, should know better than to assume that only people “attached to masculinity” can be sexist.

    Ultimately in the hobby spheres where I’ve encountered this kind of issue, it really does come down to how willing the organization is to deal with the problem of Paul. I have seen several Pauls continue as they are, being awful to other people, and I have left those places; I have seen a LOT of Pauls be kicked out by people who were sick of them (including one coup de Paul in which Paul was the leader of the group… until we decided she wasn’t). And there are a handful of people I wouldn’t call Pauls who have acted badly in the past but who are genuinely well-intentioned, kind people and have shaped up when called on their behavior — generally before it escalated to this point, though.

    The thing is, any organization that’s big enough to be called an organization (even if there’s no formal legal structure or whatever) needs a mechanism for dealing with people leaving, including people being forced to leave because they’re awful. If your org isn’t willing to engage with that as a possibility they’re just going to keep attracting awful people who won’t leave. One of my past hobby groups made the policy that “no one with an interest in teapots should EVER be kicked out” and (well after I left) it took someone plausibly threatening actual real-world violence to others to decide, “oh, actually, maybe we don’t need that one person in our group,” and even then there was some resistance. If they say anything like “we should never turn anyone away!” in response to discussions about what to do about problem people — regardless of what happens with Paul — you cannot change them and you should not waste your precious time and mental health trying to do so. They are unwilling to engage with reality. Only time and hard experience can change their minds, and maybe not even that. Leave. Leave leave leave.

  52. allx*

    The go-between said a “written agreement” but we have side-tracked onto the idea that the written agreement is a list of how Paul is supposed to communicate. I think OP needs to actually have a written agreement which sets out both the duties and obligations of the parties (OP (and similarly situated people or the organization in general) and Paul. So there would be the list of things that a person does or doesn’t do in communicating, but also could include what happens in case of non-compliance (i.e., rude, condescending, interruptive behavior continues) so that Paul gets his list of rules, but OP gets a process for consequences if the rules are ignored/breached.

    TL;DR: Make an actual agreement that covers what OP wants out of the agreement (process for shutting Paul down/kicking out of group for bad behavior) as well as the specific rules Paul is seeking.

  54. AnonyAutist*

    As an autist myself, I’m a bit miffed by Paul potentially weaponizing my diagnosis. Have seen that happen.
    Also, even an autist can be jerk, have seen that, too.

    But most importantly, autist or not, I see this guy arguing and gaming the written rule list “The rules only said I can’t call the OP a b****! They don’t say I can’t call her a c*** !” etc.etc. ad nauseam.

    I say shape up or ship out. Autists can learn manners and social cues, too.

  55. Calamity Janine*

    to me the biggest problem is that when Paul was told to check themselves for sexism, they dismissed it with logic of “i did not intend that so it isn’t possible”.

    intention as magic is poison to social justice movements, same as it is poison in many other respects.

    i say that as cishet mcgee over here. i do not roll out of bed rubbing my hands together in glee about how i’m gonna do a transmisogyny today. but i have still done it! and i am thankful to my friends who called that to my attention and told me “this sucks and is hurtful, please fix”. same as how i, as white as a jar of mayonnaise and not half as cultured, do not put “do a racism” on my daily planner but still have done it anyway. my ignorance did not save me. my intention to just use a folk tale from my neck of the woods did not save me from the fact i said something racist. (still kinda mad that the very excellent tale of Bre’r Rabbit Demonstrates That You Shouldn’t Feed The Trolls, Using Bre’r Fox As An Example is ruined by me having to go “wait, i thought it was just a baby made out of tar and pitch to be sticky, racists use that to say WHAT?!” but i don’t blame my nonwhite friends for telling me this, i blame racism for ruining it.) the fact that i belong to marginalized groups also certainly did not give me carte blanche here! i can face misogyny and still do transmisogyny. (i can even be a woman and still do a misogyny.) the reasons why i am hurt don’t give me license to also do the hurting – they give me reasons why i should seek to do better immediately because i know how much it sucks.

    we all can do bigotry without meaning to do it. that’s kind of the point of systemic bigotry!

    if you don’t accept that as a basis of social justice work, you’re never going to get to the justice. all you’re going to get is prioritizing the feelings of people who are invested in reasons why they don’t need to do the social justice work. the intention of “but i haven’t consciously chosen to be bigoted” is winning out as the more important concern than the people whose lives are negatively impacted by the bigotry. that is exactly why the bigotry is allowed to flourish these days, and exactly how it gets perpetuated.

    to the people impacted by it, the effect is the same even if the person didn’t write Be A Bigot Today on their to-do list that morning. prioritizing the hurt feelings of the people doing bigotry by excusing it with “they didn’t mean it intentionally though!” over the people who suffer its effects is just another way to do that same bigotry. it is once again minimizing the hurt and harm being done in order to serve the comfort of those causing the harm.

    (and honestly, one of the reasons i am happy to do the work when called out is… i dislike the idea i need to be pandered to! i think that if trans rights are concerned over not making me feel bad when i mess up instead of being concerned about the people i hurt when i mess up, it’s not great. it’s not a solution. i’m not more important than them! i am also not such a delicate wilting flower that i will melt if someone lets me know i stepped in it. to try and shield me from that is rather infantalizing as it does imply i simply am not capable of doing better. to people wanting to go “oh but Paul is autistic, they can’t help it”… same hat, and that attitude of “ooh you’re just not quite a whole person like us neurotypicals, we can’t expect anything more from you” is a very vicious and real expression of ableism.)

    if your social justice movement doesn’t want to tell someone that they actually need to do any work about it, what are you left with?

    not much. there’s no way forward. there’s no call to action. there’s not even a way to have the group address issues within itself. the only thing it can offer as a solution is something that’s honestly part of the same cruelty – if you believe that bigotry only truly is worth addressing in people who do a little gleeful laugh like Skeletor because they enjoy doing bigotry and mark it on their calendars as a thing to do every day, and you’re in the group they want to harm, but you’re supposed to be only fighting bigotry within them…

    that’s a declaration that social justice equals martyrdom. that the group is there to feed people to the lions. that bigotry is only fought by sacrificing people to the group that wants them to be sacrificed – that you need to agree with the people doing the harm.

    yikes, right?

    that’s not what y’all should be heading out to do. it’s not what is kind or useful. it’s also not where the vast majority of the problem is. if anything, this is a known problem for awhile. when’s the last time you read MLK Jr’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail? because he writes a far more scathing indictment of the “but they didn’t really mean it, and anyway they’ll never listen to you if you’re too mean or too forceful or make them examine their actions or do it in the wrong season or ask for it with a fox, ask for it in a box, ask for it in the entire rest of Green Eggs And Ham… you’ve got to figure out exactly how to mollify them first and foremost before asking them to stop hurting you!” mindset. he will illuminate exactly how much it gets you to prioritize the feelings of the oppressors over the lives of the oppressed. (and he’s a much better orator who doesn’t have to chase down his point and exhaust it in a wall of text like i do, too.)

    heck, i would say that “intentions aren’t magic” is also a lesson to apply to the business world in general. it also applies in the workplace. i can say i didn’t mean to install a virus on the workplace computers, but if i was running limewire to get all of the seasons of Severance pirated and i get explode-ur-computer.exe instead, it doesn’t mean the IT department has any less headaches. entire systems like lock-out tag-out methods exist because of this! very few people intentionally want to kill a coworker with the industrial box crusher. there are not as many attempted murder charges as there are people who end up injured or killed in box crushers. the lock-out tag-out system exists because we know it can happen without anyone intending it. we are used to other ways where intention is not magic; if intention alone was enough, we would live in a much different world, right? and Alison would have way fewer questions to answer. think of all the people who don’t intend to do so badly at a job they get put on a PIP or fired, but end up there anyway. bad intentions can make a situation worse, but good intentions don’t make the consequences go away.

    if the rule doesn’t hold for the rest of the world, then it’s not one that should suddenly be ruling the roost in social justice, either.

    of course i mention this in part to give the LW a way to advocate for themselves here… and to know when it’s time to make like some spinach artichoke and dip.

    if your social justice organization would rather hold fast to the idea that intention is magic (with, if we’re being honest, a cool ableist half-twist of “but Paul’s autistic, we can’t expect them to understand, even when you’ve told them directly repeatedly”)… you gotta get out. that’s not them wanting progress. it’s just a way to uphold the status quo. it’s also a way that they’re okay with things being made unsafe for you and making the aesop be “if you’re being oppressed, it’s your fault for not catering harder to your oppressors”. i know this may feel like abandoning the mission or betraying your loyalties to social justice. but you don’t need that validation when the cost is so high, and please remember that it is radical in and of itself to demand that you be treated with dignity to the point where you will leave instead of just accepting mistreatment.

  56. AngryOwl*

    As a neurodivergent person, I hate when neurodivergent people use it as an excuse to be a jerk. Paul’s behavior is unacceptable, regardless of any other details about them as a human being. The list won’t fix anything. Do it if you want to cover all your bases, but I would start getting really blunt with the leadership/your mentor about how Paul is affecting the organization. And be ready to leave if you can’t handle Paul anymore.

  57. LW who doesn't yet have a list*

    Hi all! Thanks again for these great replies and food for thought. I’m glad that my not-exactly-work situation is still relevant for people in more horizontal / non-profit type settings and hobby spaces. If Paul actually wants a list, I like the idea of asking Paul to reflect on what they’ve been asked (by me and others) to adjust in their behavior to start the list. I also appreciate folks who have identified that this really is a lot of work for me / others to do (including if we try to make a code of conduct that has enough explanation for Paul). And I appreciate the point that the list could have consequences spelled out as well as steps that I (and others?) need to take to ensure that we are communicating clearly.

    1. Donna Moss*

      I agree with Alison’s advice 100%. I agree that you being asked to extend this much effort is not appropriate. As others have said, I doubt Paul will follow a list and try and find loopholes. Frankly, akin to what others have said, I would be tempted to make it one bullet point, “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” It’s terrible that they’re trying to make this about the two of you, instead of just admitting the issue is Paul, and showing him the door, but this type of thing happens way too often. I am having an issue with a newer co-worker that is a little similar: co-worker won’t follow instructions, written, verbal, or otherwise. I was tasked to help train, but have no supervisory authority, and pointed this problem out to my supervisors when my instructions to this male co-worker were repeatedly ignored, and repeated attempts to find out what would help him best were met with crickets from him. Supervisors want to keep writing more and more procedures, which are great to have, but need to be followed to be useful, and they refuse to hold him accountable.

      1. Starbuck*

        Right? It doesn’t really sound like Paul is choosing to put in any effort at all to address their side of it – just finding ways to deflect the burden onto LW to smooth things over. Not a recipe for improvement unfortunately.

  58. LondonLives*

    Might not have specific application here but I found Dean Spade’s book “Love in a F*cked Up World: How to Build Relationships, Hook Up and Raise Hell Together” really useful for thinking about organising group dynamics.

  59. Scrimp*

    The only way Paul will change is if they want to chamge, and at the moment they don’t seem to want to change.

    The only way the org will change is if they want to change, and at the moment they don’t seem to want to change.

    I propose a way to make them want to change (feed two birds with one scone, if you will): every time Paul does something awful, shout “TIME OUT! Paul did something bad, let’s all discuss why it was bad and why they shouldn’t have done that.” Get other people involved in the discussion. Invite other people to make time-outs, too. Really grill Paul every time they interrupt someone, ask them why they didn’t feel like they could let the other person finish speaking?

  60. Indolent Libertine*

    Another hand up for seeing lots of rules-lawyering in LW’s future. I mean, is Paul going to argue that the list says he/they can’t call LW a “b***h” but there was literally no way he could be expected to know that this prohibition also included “effing b***h” and “nasty b***h” etc etc etc? There is no way to write any behavior code that includes every single variation of what is unacceptable behavior by one adult toward another, and anyone who can’t successfully interact in a group unless they have such a comprehensive code is not worth the trouble no matter how well they do something that’s good for the org.

  61. LW who is not necessarily going to write a list*

    I’ve been reflecting on how I might write this list / agreement, especially given that people have raised such good points about how not doing it might make me appear (unfair, inflexible). But the issues of Rules Lawyering just keeps bringing me up short. One of the things that has been tough to experience and witness are Paul’s interruptions/corrections. Paul will interrupt and correct someone for minor errors (swapping words in a sentence accidentally, where the meaning is perfectly clear and where Paul understands the meaning and interrupts to offer it) or for not spelling something out explicitly. For example, during a Zoom call I told a female legislative expert that a bill had not been heard in committee and Paul posted in the chat “to be clear, that means it died in committee.” Neither she nor I needed that explanation — she’s literally a professional at this and I have a lot of experience lobbying. But I wonder if for Paul these really feel like vital clarifications? And how do I explain to someone who feels passionately that these things need to be clarified that it comes across as condescending/mansplainy? Paul really seems to think this is a way they are contributing to the group! In another situation, I was asked a question, and replied, and then there was a follow up question on the same topic — a project I was working on and Paul wasn’t. Immediately, Paul jumped in to answer the question, and gave the wrong information. I provided the correct info and asked Paul to let those of us working on the project provide info on the project. Paul’s response was “Apologies (?) I thought I was being helpful.” This was a group text exchange that took place over about 4 minutes so it was very obvious that I was right there, available to answer the questions directed at me. A final example: Paul keeps asking me for information or to do tasks that aren’t my responsibility. I will reply and let Paul know that “so and so is in charge of that.” Paul will continue asking me, and I’ll clarify that they need to ask so and so. This happened a bunch lately with a woman I’ll call Bea. Recently, Bea reached out to me and said that Paul told Bea that Paul isn’t comfortable asking me questions and would Bea ask me a question for Paul. The question? Something Bea is in charge of, and I am not. I pointed out to Bea that this was a question for her ultimately and explained that I’ve been asking Paul to bring questions to the people actually working on an issue. Bea got it, but it was another frustrating experience, and feels like Paul is trying to spread rumors or shape how other people view me.

    Someone asked if there are records of roles and responsibilities. Yes!! we take copious notes. And over and over I have to remind Paul to check the notes instead of bringing questions to me. Repeatedly, Paul will come back with “but where are the notes?” It feels like weaponized incompetence – why am I supposed to know where the notes are and check them to answer Paul’s questions? How many times do I have to tell Paul where the notes are before it is Paul’s responsibility to figure out a way to remember that?

    If this happened every so often, it would be no big deal. And it is inevitable that people will do these things occasionally — we all make mistakes. But with Paul these kinds of things (speaking over people, interrupting, correcting, asking others to do labor that isn’t their responsibility) happen multiple times a week. I can very easily see a situation where Paul starts monitoring everyone else for every single mistake, not recognizing that the *volume* is part of the problem. Which again makes it feel that the solution isn’t necessarily either a code if conduct for everyone or a list of rules for Paul.

    I don’t know exactly where I’ve ended up here but I think that it feels clear that I personally need space from Paul and the org needs to be able to address this situation. I’ll keep exploring options!

    1. PeopleAreComplicated*

      So…Paul sounds a lot like a person I (until very recently) had to work with (in a private, consulting, setting), where it became clear to me that whatever other people’s perceptions of him were, my!Paul just wasn’t going to change or do any kind of introspection. I will say that blank-faced, basic “that’s inappropriate”, “please don’t interupt, that’s rude”, “as we’ve discussed, that’s not my responsibility”, and “notes are in the notes folder! Link should be in my email of last week!” will get you results if you can apply them consistently and ignore or refuse to engage in any explanations/complaints/discussions. Expletive-filled or personal comments via email get immediately responded to with “that’s not an acceptable way to speak to or about a colleague” with the appropriate individuals from the subcommittee/board cc’d. EVERY time. ( the intention with this specific action is to 1. prevent these horrible emails from being something you suffer through alone, in silence and 2. make them EVERYONE’s problem, so you’re all on the same page about how this person is specifically treating you)

      To be clear, the goal here is to consistently reinforce that bad or inconsiderate behaviour gets them exactly the same response every time, and it is a boring and unambiguous response. The more people you can get to agree to do this, the more effective it will be, but even if it’s only you doing it, it will hopefully change the way Paul treats YOU.

      Caveate (1): commenters on this thread are correct that managing appropriate behaviour and conflicts within an organization is a structural problem, and my suggested approaches are individual ones. These will hopefully reduce YOUR stress, but will not fix the overall problem.
      Caveate (2): it sounds from your comment here like you’ve reached the stage of “my conflict with this person has been going on SO LONG that I can no longer stand to work with them/be around them” (the bitch-eating-crackers phase to borrow the Capt Awkward vocab). Which is valid and a risk organizations run when conflicts (even minor ones) go untreated for too long. Just…be aware of that if it’s accurate, because it will affect how much energy you have for this org and mission overall.

    2. Calamity Janine*

      if Paul was receptive to correction, i think the correction might be along the lines of “before you say something, think about if what you say is going to actually be useful. consider who you are correcting. are they an expert in something where you only have a little bit of experience? then they probably don’t need you to correct them. if you are confused, you can ask for your own clarification – let them be the expert, because suddenly forgetting why this expert is here is dehumanizing to them by dismissing their knowledge. if you are confused, let it be your confusion, don’t try to talk for the group. ‘is not being heard in committee the same as dying in committee?’ is okay. telling a legislator, who knows very well what these things mean, that they mean what they do? that’s belittling her by ignoring her knowledge. similarly, do not ignore someone’s knowledge when you ask for a status update. let the person whose project it is do the updating. if you ignore their role and dehumanize them by writing them out of their own project, you risk doing something like giving completely wrong information which then has to be corrected. that’s not helpful, but instead creating more problems for them because you did not want to acknowledge that someone is in charge of the project they are in charge of.”

      but… this whole sneaking around going “but Beeaaaaa, they’re so scarryyyy! you have to go ask them for meeeee!”…? oooh my hackles, they are *up*.

      i’m about to be quite mean for a second: that’s weaponizing social skills in a way that doesn’t jive with “but i’m autistic so how was i supposed to know, i am but a poor innocent lamb who needs to be told to not do these things”. oh, Paul knows. i’m not going to say he’s not autistic. i mean, i’m also plenty weird in the brain, and i smell this a mile off. i got to middle school, i developed a special interest in etiquette, and now you can just call me Jim Carrey in green face paint and a banana yellow suit because I’m The Mask, Babeeeyy!. autism isn’t an automatic inability to understand this stuff. some of us even, uh, go slightly the other way. and… Paul has just shown you that he absolutely does not get to use that excuse anymore. he knows the game. he knows how to play it. he is in fact playing it very skillfully and very manipulatively. Paul isn’t pulling these sort of moves by accident – they are doing them with purpose. they’re hustling. just like someone hustling the poker tables, the card sharp can’t claim to just be a total novice who just has beginner’s luck when they are revealed to have won the last five years of poker tournaments here and also have several cards hidden up their sleeve with an elaborate apparatus they use to cheat. the card sharp isn’t ignorant about poker – the card sharp knows it very, *very* well because they can manipulate it so skillfully.

      and this behavior is keeping perfectly in pattern with how they already treat you. you get written out of your expert knowledge of knowing the project you’re leading… and you also get written out of the idea that you have anything to do all day than be Paul’s keeper. they believe you’re a repository for busywork whose time does not need to be respected. and when you don’t magically have knowledge that isn’t yours and instead refer him to the people who actually know, you become too scary to talk to directly!

      i… don’t know if there’s anything you can say to Paul here. he’s showing that on some fundamental level, he does not respect you and the work you do.

      not just that, but they’re playing this little social game where they’re intentionally manipulating people so that they’re the poor innocent and you’re the big scary meanie… while also disrespecting your time, your expertise, and your very role within the organization.

      i genuinely do not know how to get someone who is invested in dehumanizing you, and aggravating you for sport, to listen when you need to tell them “stop doing this because it is making my life harder and it is hurtful”. Paul’s kinda invested in making your life harder and being hurtful. it’s fun for them. they are told all the time they need to stop, and they don’t want to. they know enough to manipulate the situation in their favor, and to now make other people agents of the Let’s Disrespect LW’s Time Doing Their Job game by saying how mean you are. they don’t really get to claim ignorance in social situations… and… how do you pull someone back from the brink here?

      i don’t know. wish i did, but i really don’t! i expect that if there is a firm answer, every social justice advocate would be very excited to hear that you, idk, do the konami code on people’s earlobes and suddenly their brain reboots in safe mode without the bigotry malware and then they actually listen to people they dehumanize for sport and recognize those groups as equally human. unfortunately i got nothin’. you can’t even smack someone’s temple and taint at the same time to take a screenshot. humans just don’t have very convenient secret keyboard shortcuts.

      Paul has, through his own dedication and hard work, grown beyond your means to solve. they’ve gotten into a firm pattern of ignoring you. please point out to your superiors that this isn’t going to work any better than the last hundred times you have already done it. if it needs to be coming from a mouth that isn’t yours, then so be it. (and if Paul suddenly pays attention as soon as someone who identifies as male says it… in the spirit of harmonious coexistence and unity, may i, a humble cishet, cordially invite you to the Feminist Screaming Palapa? we have a custom silk-upholstered tantrum hole. perfectly padded so you can put your face right in there and just scream as loud as you want and as much as you need. it’s stupendous. but before you adjourn to the Feminist Screaming Palapa, point out the pattern once again being reinforced, and i will begin fixing you a mai tai as soon as you text that you’re on your way.)

      if you want to go out of your way to be as generous to Paul as possible, and as kind to his neurodiversity as possible… i would point out that another round of Let’s Get LW To Keep Doing The Thing That Doesn’t Work, Once More With Feeling! is pretty mean to Paul if you take them at their word, too. Paul says he is unable to change his behavior due to his autism. okay. this means that your tactics aren’t working and it is frustrating him. why set him up for failure by continuing to do the thing that doesn’t work? why go for this tactic of “second verse, same as the first, little bit faster and a little bit worse”? that’s just expecting him to somehow miraculously be not autistic and sort out his own needs through the power of positive thinking and unicorn farts. if they are genuinely unable, there is no shame in needing more help… and there’s no shame in asking for that accomodation instead of, as has happened here, just vaguely assuming that’s what Paul needs instead of asking him and giving him agency in their own condition’s treatment. but at this point it’s clearly not help that you, as a layperson, can actually give them. it is an unkindness to continue failing Paul in this way and expect them to just… somehow make do regardless. if Paul’s struggles are genuine, it means Paul genuinely needs support, and it means Paul’s support can’t just be the amateur hour clown show of repeated mistakes. Paul deserves the dignity of their troubles actually being considered valid enough to need help. denying Paul this and just handing him yet more of the thing that doesn’t help is kind of like expecting someone starving from a terrible case of celiac disease to just fix it by eating more glutenous gruel. the gluten already hates their intestines! the gluten causing their intestines to self-destruct is a problem! pretending it simply won’t be a problem if we try it for the bajillionth time is being very cruel to the person with celiac, and it’s doing absolutely nothing about their starvation as their intestines decide that the presence of gluten means little tasks like “absorbing nutrients” are for total squares.

      tell the organization that it’s not kind to set Paul up for failure by asking you to once again do the thing that isn’t working, that Paul isn’t listening to, that Paul has *refused* to listen to, and that make Paul’s problems worse… and even if they’re going to look to Paul’s welfare and not yours, they have plenty of reasons to handle this properly. but it’s also something that is hurting you, your business here, your ability to do projects and get results, *and* it’s something that is harming connections the org really needs to flourish. (the org that makes a legislator feel insulted and belittled is one she is less likely to take the calls of, for instance.) this issue doesn’t have to be lose-lose, but it *is* only losses all around if they insist on handling it as “LW just has a thing where they hate Paul and Paul thinks they’re super scary and he can’t know what he’s doing wrong even though they tell him so the solution is for her to write down a list of all the things he can’t do, because maybe it’ll work *this* time and he’ll actually listen to them. five hundredth time’s the charm!”.

      if your org is a good one – if there’s something there worth sticking around for – then you can, and should, lay this at the feet of someone else to fix, at which point they will leap to fix it. it’s a problem you have tried to fix, and this is bigger than you can deal with; Paul is making a game out of not respecting you trying to fix it, and has moved on to the social manipulation of trying to turn people against you while using them as pawns in the game of Let’s Disrespect LW. you don’t need to continue doing the thing doomed to failure. if the org is a good one, they’re going to have the reaction of “oh my gosh, of COURSE, we’re so sorry we bothered you with this idea, we’ll handle it with Paul right now”. if they don’t… then… tuck and roll on out of there.

      i admit that hearing Paul play the social manipulation games like this, and people apparently going along with it – even if not consciously meaning to, but accepting Paul saying “LW is scary! you have to talk to them instead of me! you have to ask them about the project that you know you’re doing and LW doesn’t know about, but do it anyway!”… even if you square it with Bea afterwards… combined with the solution of making a list for Paul, when you’re quite obviously giving him quite a lot of correction anyway? i am concerned that you’ve been written into the org role of They Whomst Wrangle The Paul. it’s smelling to me like they’re gearing up to place all his behavior on you and make it your failure instead. i truly, emphatically, sincerely hope i am wrong and this never comes to pass. but i would keep your head on a swivel for this dynamic – and signs that it’s already here.

      tldr: this is many words for essentially “dang, dude… idk” with diversions for hopefully useful specific analysis. if nothing else, please look up the creature called a viscacha for a moment of fluffy zen that you absolutely deserve for enduring this firehose of trying nonsense

      1. bamcheeks*

        i genuinely do not know how to get someone who is invested in dehumanizing you, and aggravating you for sport

        I think this is key, and this is what an effective mediator would be asking. Firstly, what is the outcome Paul wants? Is Paul invested in finding a solution that keeps both them and LW in the organisation? What is Paul willing to do to achieve that outcome? (They should be asking you the same questions, of course.) Secondly, what is the advantage to the organisation of having Paul on board? What is the organisation willing to do to keep Paul on board? What is the organisation willing to do to keep you on board? If you can’t discuss those issues frankly, and if Paul can’t specify what they are willing to do to achieve that outcome, you can’t move forward.

        The drum that I would keep banging is “I don’t know whether Paul is invested in working towards the organisation’s goals, or invested in manipulating me and our organisational structures to discredit me. What I do know that is the behaviour I’m seeing is identical to the behaviour that I would see if they were primarily invested in manipulation and discrediting me, and I can’t move forward with the organisation / in a leadership role until I see a change there.” (And before you have this conversation, figure out your own red lines — are you willing to leave over this? Step down from leadership? Even if you don’t formally leave, will you find yourself increasingly reluctant to engage or take on new projects? Make sure you can articulate the case for action by specifying what the leadership is choosing if they choose no action.)

        On the other side, you do also need to show some flexibility, which might be simply pretending you do not see, “To be clear, that means it died in committee” or similarly “helpful” clarifications in the chat. Figure out what is truly disruptive and MUST stop, and what you can let go as Paul’s gonna Paul. If you can give some ground too (reasonably, and stuff that you can genuinely commit to if the worst stuff stops), it will feel like a more productive and genuine negotiation. But part of that is having clarity about what you won’t tolerate.

        Lastly, I am not clear on whether your organisation is a) strongly invested in keeping Paul in a leadership role b) strongly invested in keeping Paul in the organisation if not in a leadership role or c) just unwilling to make hard decisions and will go with the path of least resistance if it comes down to Paul v You (And Other People Too.) That’s a really critical thing to clarify too! Maybe your organisation has grown to the point where it needs to make this stuff explicit.

    3. Observer*

      not recognizing that the *volume* is part of the problem. Which again makes it feel that the solution isn’t necessarily either a code if conduct for everyone or a list of rules for Paul.

      Yeah, the problem is not that he “doesn’t realize”. And you are correct that a list of rules for Paul is not really going to change the behavior pattern here.

      But what you are describing makes the suggestion even more ridiculous. It also makes it obvious that the organization is even more toxic than it appeared from your initial letter. Also, that the rot has spread. I mean why did Bea feel like she had to run interference for poor little Paul who was being “intimidated” by you, and was she so deferential to Paul that she didn’t even think to question why he was sending her to you to answer a question that was in *her* area? This is missing stair on steroids.

      I’m glad that Bea got it, but I can imagine how frustrated you found it. Just reading it was frustrating.

      For example, during a Zoom call I told a female legislative expert that a bill had not been heard in committee and Paul posted in the chat “to be clear, that means it died in committee.” Neither she nor I needed that explanation — she’s literally a professional at this

      This one is particularly hair raising. And it makes me think that no one in a position of power in the organization is interested in fixing the problem. Because it’s one thing to fall into a trap of thinking that everyone in the organization should overlook this stuff “for the greater good.” (To be clear, that is a BAD attitude but I can see how an organization gets there.) But this is happening with people *outside of the organization.* Paul is being a rude and condescending jerk to someone who the organization needs to cultivate. That Paul doesn’t see it tells me that no amount of “agreements” are going to work. That organizational leadership is allowing this to go on tells me that they are not fit to lead the organization and they certainly won’t do anything to protect their own people.

    4. Beth*

      You’re having trouble writing a list because this is a situation where a list is an inappropriate response.

      Paul is targeting you with a barrage of rude, dismissive, passive aggressive, undermining behaviors. Given your attempts to redirect him aren’t working, it’s hard to assume good intent here–but regardless of intent, this would wear anyone down over time. But instead of getting support, it sounds like you’ve become the Keeper Of Paul at your organization.

      Why are you stuck working with Paul frequently enough for him to direct this at you multiple times a week? Why are they joining you on external-facing meetings with experts when you clearly have it handled and his main role is adding mansplain-y comments? When Paul reached out to Bea with this “I’m scared to ask OP questions, can you ask them [question that is actually for Bea]” nonsense, why did Bea actually ask you, instead of 1. just answering the question and/or 2. telling Paul she isn’t going to triangulate between you? Why has no one who isn’t AFAB or femme-presenting (relevant because Paul has a trend of dismissing feedback from people who could be read as woman-adjacent, regardless of their actual identities) noticed Paul’s behavior and stepped in to take over managing him? Why didn’t they step in when other people left due to him? When you finally got fed up with your attempts to teach him and asked for mediation, why was the response that you should do even more work to teach him?

      I think your solution, to take space from Paul and have the org address this, is right. But I don’t love that the other leaders in your org let things get to this point. It points to either a structural inability to turn away people who are actually becoming a hindrance to the organization’s work, or a desire to include people but there being no actual plan for managing those who behave badly beyond “whoever they decide to target will become their social coach/secretary/punching bag, on top of their regular work, with no institutional support”. Neither is a sign of a well-run organization.

    5. Theaz*

      One thing this brings to mind is something that went into the employee handbook at the first place I worked in my profession, and which I have used ever since, which is (particularly when I have juniors who are either extremely anxious, or a little lazy, or prone to asking questions or trying to get input with a frequency that’s disruptive) trying to train them only to come with questions when it makes sense and is necessary. That means making it a bit frustrating or disappointing to bring me a question that’s low-hanging fruit, by declining to answer it until the person has tried on their own. In practice that means meeting most questions with – can you tell me what you have already tried to find this out? Can you tell me where you have looked to find the person responsible for this project? What steps have you taken on your own to figure this out?
      Where are the notes = I’m in the middle of a task right now, can you tell me where you have already checked to find them?

      I can also see a universe where it’s something to try with Paul’s chiming in when it’s unwelcome or unwanted? Earlier you sent wrong information out to the group. I understand you wanted to be helpful. Before you sent it, did you check the group to see if anyone closer to the project was receiving the communication, and could have given information? What made you conclude you were the best person in that chat to give that information? What made you believe others in the meeting did not know what it meant for the bill not to have been heard? Why would I be in a better position than Bea to answer this question about Bea’s project?

      Some of this (the correcting in particular) rings bells for me as a person who has historically annoyed some in my workplaces (and elsewhere) by needing to understand, clarify, and make sense of things according to my own internal logic because of the way my brain works, even as the social costs grew. I have often been perceived as disrespectful and challenging when it hasn’t occurred to me I’m not being helpful or my pushing for clarify feels like challenging someone with expertise. Now, Paul’s other behaviour (swearing, interrupting) is different than this and I don’t mean to excuse or minimize it. But for this other kind of behaviour, meeting questions with questions might work because it A. acts as a deterrent to constant bother, retraining Paul that you’re a frustrating source for information they can get on their own faster or that they’re going to have to show their work before they get low-hanging fruit type help. Like other posters have said, the consistent boring, frustrating response to bad behaviour can be really effective. But asking Paul to explain their unreasonable behaviour or steps maybe also B. put a bug in the programming of Paul’s current perspective. Maybe Paul feels like Paul is being very logical and helpful and it is confusing that things keep turning into conflict – meeting questions with questions might prompt Paul to notice where their assumptions are bad, or they have missed a step or a possibility? Either Paul is living it up in the space where they can feign confusion, or Paul is genuinely missing many many memos on social interactions. Neither changes whether the behaviour is ok, but putting the onus on them to explain might elicit some useful information that helps distinguish between the two, and change some of the behaviours.

  62. LW who is not necessarily going to write a list*

    Folks have made a great point that even though “sexism” has been helpful for me in recognizing the issue, it might not be useful in communicating with Paul. At the same time, I think Paul is actually more aware of what’s happening than they want to let on. For example, recently I did describe it as sexist that Paul keeps telling me to do work that isn’t my responsibility, even after I tell them who is in charge. Paul’s response was to bring up a time several months ago, that I’d forgotten, when Paul went behind my back to confer with a man in the org and make decisions about a project I was managing without me. At the time, I just asked Paul not to do that, I didn’t label it as sexist (though it felt sexist). Now, months later, Paul brought it up again, asking how telling me to do work and going around me so that I wasn’t asked to do work could both be sexist. It was a very sarcastic message that included expletives. When I replied “I don’t understand the question” Paul said they were emotionally disregulated and should have kept that to themselves. As I’m reflecting, I think that Paul isn’t as confused about the norms of social engagement as they want some people to believe.

    1. anononon*

      Everything you said in your previous comment makes me think Paul is being manipulative on purpose, but in fairness I had a series of nightmarish things happen (the worst of which thankfully cannot happen here and which I would not expect to happen anyway because your average awful workplace manipulator isn’t THAT kind of vile) after a person who was being like this started talking to everyone behind my back about how scary and mean I was when I asked them to stop swearing at people in our hobby group and then refused to soften my stance because of their nonspecific diagnosis, so I might be projecting.

      The thing is, whether they’re being manipulative or they really are reacting like this organically (or both! honestly, it’s often both.) it’s unacceptable and disruptive behavior that’s hindering everyone in achieving their goals and wasting time. Similarly, whether they’re being sexist or really just don’t care to or cannot learn which work is people’s responsibility, it’s presenting a problem. If they really cared, they would print out or bookmark a copy of the “who does what around here” reference document and consult it, or find some other way of retaining the information externally when their memory failed them. (Source: I have ADHD, I can’t remember anything to save my life except for obscure trivia about my interests, but I double-check reference documents religiously when they’re available and make them for myself when they’re not.)

      1. bamcheeks*

        Yeah, manipulative people aren’t always consciously manipulative: they aren’t necessarily enacting the thought process, “aha, if I am bad at this, someone else will do the work for me and I win!” Sometimes it’s just a purely reactive behaviour that nevertheless gets the reaction they want and is therefore reinforced, “Oh no, someone wants me to do scary thing! BIG EMOTIONAL REACTION! OK, scary thing went away, phew. Oh no, scary thing is back! What fixed this last time? BIG EMOTIONAL REACTION!”

        The thing you need to focus on is that the behaviour is identical whether or not Paul’s intention is manipulative or self-protective. If you get into the territory of trying to legislate “Paul knows what they are doing”, it’s a losing battle because you can’t know that. “This is the impact of Paul’s behaviour” is the way to go.

        1. LW who is not writing a list*

          Great point to separate intent/knowledge from behavior/impact. Thanks!

    3. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

      There’s one rule that has to be number one on the list: ‘Don’t be the cause of any more rules needing to be added’

      If they cannot understand that, then there’s no hope.

      And there is a simple rule to add to that: ‘Think about what you’re saying before you say it. What is the outcome you want here? How likely is it? And is your comment going to cause anyone to react negatively?’

      I can get a computer to understand when not to swear at me or do sexist things. If a person needs MORE instruction than a computer then there’s really no place for them at work.

    4. Beth*

      You’re definitely describing someone who has awareness of what they’re doing. You’ve described Paul spreading rumors of you being ‘scary’ behind your back, tracking your exact words over periods of months and then reviving them at the right moment to use them against you, and has manipulated others (Bea) into going to you with questions on *a project that she is an expert on and you aren’t working on*. All of those actions require social skills and an awareness of social dynamics. It’s hard to believe that someone who can pull off all of that is unaware of the impact of their actions, and it’s hard to believe that someone who’s aware of that impact would keep it up without an intent to do harm.

      I think the fix for you personally is to say that you and Paul clearly don’t work well together and put some distance between you. But Paul is going to keep causing problems, and someone in your org (not you, someone who either Paul listens to or who can kick Paul out) is going to need to handle that eventually.

    5. Indolent Libertine*

      Oh, Paul.

      OK. It’s sexist to tell only women to do work when you never tell men to do work in a comparable way. It’s sexist to tell women to do tasks that aren’t their responsibility if you never treat men comparably. It’s also sexist to disrespect only women’s authority over their own areas of work but never men’s (e.g. going around you so you “weren’t asked to do work”). It’s really not at all difficult for anyone who isn’t badly motivated to comprehend this.

    6. Calamity Janine*

      oh my hackles are so raised they are attempting to enter orbit.

      if he’s bringing up sexism here and not you, that’s a pretty crucial bit of mens rea there, to slip into latin for a second. he knows what he is doing is sexist. he’s goading you to say something about it so he can try and make it into you being a bigot. meanwhile, both his actions are all about assuming your incompetency – either you need him to decide what you should be doing in your job, or you need a man from outside to direct you instead. at no point are you trusted to know your job in either scenario. that’s what makes it sexist.

      and if he’s sending you an expletive laden rant where HE brings up sexism, well, he knows damn well how guilty he is.

      then his excuse at the end… “well i have emotional dysregulation!” so you have to deal with it? so his chosen accomodations include cussing you out after knowing he’s being sexist to you and rubbing that in your face? my disabled self knows quite clearly this is not a reasonable accomodation and no court in the land would disagree with me. to further bring in some lived experience… i am a chronic pain patient. sometimes that means when i am in pain, i get snappy. now, i will even give myself credit and say that’s often a symptom of being at an 8/10 on the pain scale, but you know what? it still doesn’t mean my friends need to sit there and absorb it. that’s not a reasonable ask. so what i do instead is shuffle my unhappy little butt to another venue. i go put myself in quarantine where i am playing a single player online game. i make it so that i can get over the pain spike without becoming a royal terror to others. Paul says they “should have kept it to themselves” but… historically has not! cussing people out about it and expecting that as an accomodation seems to be their M.O. this whole time! and even if they’re “keeping it to themselves”, the problem isn’t entirely them sending you nasty grams. it’s that they’re still intentionally and repeatedly disrespecting you by assuming you don’t know how to do your work and need someone (who specifically is more masc than you) to order you around.

      it’s like how little kids often just tattle on themselves. “now, were you good for the babysitter?” “YEAH AND I DUNNO HOW SIX STICKS OF BUTTER GOT UNDERNEATH YOUR PILLOW.” thanks kid. mom now knows that she’s gotta do butter-related laundry because child has been using her pillow as butter storage. Paul has given you a similar very suspiciously specific denial in arguing that he’s not sexist before you even tell him to stop being sexist. they’ve told you that they definitely put the butter under your pillow. they’ve also told you, with all those expletives, that it’s what they meant to do the whole time. Paul isn’t just doing sexism unthinkingly. they are choosing to do it against you specifically.

      if you lay this out for higher ups at your org and they say anything other “oh my god. okay it may be out of budget to actually fling Paul into the sun, but we are going to get them out of here immediately, and we are so sorry that we were blind to this for so long”… you gotta make like an autobot and roll out. and unfortunately the org is unlikely to do that because they’ve already chosen Paul over so many other people. they have likely heard this about him many ti s before. they… just don’t care. probably because of their own sexism.

      a social justice organization trying to keep around their own pet bigotry is at best an oxymoron doomed to failure, and at worst a Trojan horse that puts a thin veneer of respectability over bigotry so it can make sure the bigotry wins. you deserve to champion a cause that remembers to champion for you, too – not one that considers you uninteresting chaff to be discarded instead of regarded as a human being worth fighting for.

      1. Madame Desmortes*

        Yes, I had a student once who tried to push my buttons so that I would react in a way that would allow them to play the martyr with higher-ups. Thanks in no small part to AAM, I recognized the tactic for what it was and didn’t give the student the reaction they were angling for.

        It came to mind because the student (of course) was also trying this with their other instructors, and with one, they specifically pushed social-justice-related buttons hoping the instructor would accuse them of bigotry. (Didn’t work, again. Very experienced instructor, plus we were all on alert about the student by then and sharing information as appropriate — nothing that would get us in FERPA trouble, naturally.)

        Paul’s behavior sure does remind me of that student’s.

        1. Calamity Janine*

          it all works together very well with the tactic Paul has already employed – to, unfortunately, good success with everyone but the LW it seems! – which is to go “but i can’t be sexist because i am not a man”. they’re putting together the playbook and the play is to make LW the evil meanie who didn’t respect Paul’s gender and is The Real Bigot All Along!!1!… with a side order of “but i am not neurotypical so it means you have to let me tell expletives at you”. it’s all crafting a narrative that Paul is the one true victim and LW is the one true evil..never mind, of course, that Paul’s gender has about as much to do with their ability to be sexist as the current weather on a small patch of Mars does. and never mind that their neurodivergency also doesn’t have anything to do with it (and every time Paul insists that it does, they’re being very ableist and pushing the idea that autism equals subhuman fool who can never aspire to be anything but monstrous so quit complaining and go be Paul’s next victim).

          it’s not a super subtle undetectable hustle, especially when you know what to look for. and it’s validating to hear you picking up on the exact same hustle that i smelled lol!

          a student at least may have the defense that they’re too young to know better, but Paul doesn’t… and the org leadership certainly doesn’t. if this org had the same wisdom you and your fellow teachers do, i would expect the solution to be along shortly and all to turn out well for the LW – and i regret that i am not quite full of that hope!

    7. Theaz*

      LW this makes me especially inclined to wonder about something that’s sort of the inverse of what the mediator suggested – getting a list from Paul. Specifically, providing examples of all the behaviours from occasions that would be confirmed by written correspondence or other people, and asking what Paul finds confusing about the idea they shouldn’t behave this way. Cynical interpretation – it eliminates the wiggle room, but in a best case scenario it prompts Paul to have to articulate what is wrong with their behaviour and what ‘categories’ of behaviours are a problem. If this is indeed some part a perception issue, they may learn better from analyzing their behaviour and coming up with their own rules about how to conduct themselves than receiving one and then spending all their mental energy trying to translate it into behaviour.

      I am imagining – I understand Paul is interested in information that will clarify how to approach communication going forward. I have spoken with Paul many times about behaviours that are not acceptable, and I thought I had made things clear. It would help me to understand how Paul sees their part in these interactions, and what aspects, if any, of my responses have left them unclear on my concerns. I have set out some examples that might assist in clarifying.
      Paul was aware I was leading a project, and had seen me take XYZ steps on it. Without speaking to me or advising me, they spoke with ABC, made decisions about D and took E steps. What questions does Paul have about why that impacted the project, and left me feeling frustrated, disrespected and undermined? What questions does Paul have about why I have asked them not to do this again?
      Paul sent me this profanity laced email. What questions can I answer for Paul about why it was an unacceptable way to communicate with me?
      Paul interrupted me 15 times when I was meeting with him and Simon. Simon did not interrupt me at all, and I did not interrupt Paul. What questions does Paul have about why I spoke to them to tell them that it was disruptive, rude and undermining to repeatedly interrupt me, and to ask them to wait their turn to speak in future conversations?
      I’ve asked Paul not to tell me to do work that is not my responsibility, or theirs to assign. I’ve drawn Paul’s attention to the fact that I have only seen Paul behave in this kind of managerial or directing way towards women in the organization, and that this pattern is sexist. What questions does Paul have about why I have asked them to stop assigning work to me when it’s not theirs to assign or my responsibility to complete? What questions does Paul have about why I described a pattern of giving orders only to women as sexist?
      When I asked Paul not to assign work to me that’s not mine to do, and Paul tried to debate with me about past situations, and I did not engage with that, Paul sent me a sarcastic and swear-filled message. What questions does Paul have about why I have told him that it is not ok to take out their disregulation or frustration on me with nasty messages? What questions does Paul have about why they shouldn’t react that way?
      Continue until Paul is crushed by the weight of specific examples.

      This gives you an itemized list of bad behaviour, and reiterates that you have already told Paul what the rules are. Paul has been told. If Paul is confused, it’s Paul’s job to clarify that, and to clarify actual questions – not engage in the abstract in some debate about whether your feelings in a given situation are Objectively Reasonable And Will Be Entitled to Respect Based on the Gospel of Paul. And based on this you will get maybe one of two things – either Paul doubles down and explains how actually they thinks their behaviour was fine, and that record makes it easier for this third party to see where the problem is, that Paul can’t be trusted or talked to about it, and begin to get things organized for steps. Or, maybe (unlikely? but maybe) Paul is actually interested in being less of a jerk and this is exercise helps them distill what the IMPACT is of their behaviour and shift off the focus on intention-as-magic. Generally I think communicating with Paul might benefit from emphasizing what you will not tolerate/what Paul should not do, and using that to shut down Paul’s wish to debate what Paul meant/how Paul saw it/why Paul thinks you should experience it in a different way.

      Speaking of which – I also think it would maybe be helpful for someone in the organization who is in touch with them and prepared to take a lead on this to ask them to do some self-education on why intention isn’t magic, and ways we are totally clueless about bias in our behaviour and perceptions of situations. If Paul is interested in being less of a jerk, it may be helpful to have a path cracked open between Paul’s specific investment in masculinity and the way masculinity/sexism/patriarchy replicates itself in the world primarily without people wandering around with ferocious sexism goals in their hearts and consciousnesses. I think it’s true that sticking to behaviours/boundaries – Paul this is the third time you have interrupted me in this meeting, I am asking you not to do that again – is easier than convincing Paul about the causes of the behaviours and the way those behaviours fit into systems. I also think there’s merits in the points that avoiding causes and systems, especially in your group, is not necessarily for the better. But there’s maybe a 3rd option which is Paul spending time and energy learning that divesting from toxic masculine norms requires more than simply feeling unattached to them, and finding ways to hear the criticisms that provoke less defensiveness because Paul has absorbed the idea that having a behaviour named is not a personal attack unless we want to be personally invested and attached to that behaviour in some way going forward and resist learning from people around us.

  63. Foobar*

    Ugh. This kind of tiptoeing around basic issues is such an issue in modern queer spaces and it drives me up the wall. Let’s be real, Paul is almost certainly AMAB and moves through his life as a man, even if he identifies as nonbinary or whatever. And the LW and others who are having issues with him move through their lives as women, despite pronouns and so on.

    I’m trans, I’m not speaking totally out of my ass here- in life you generally move through the world as either male or female based on how you’re perceived by others. No one gives a shit about the deep inner feelings you have in your heart- and you have a duty to be good to other people.

    I also think there’s a lot of tendency online to expect that autistic identifying people can’t be asked to improve their behavior. But again, your job as a human is to either dial yourself way back and work hard on being polite and friendly and not interrupting or being aggressive- or you need to leave. Period end of sentence, I don’t care what TikTok or real diagnosis you have to excuse your behavior

    I don’t give a rats behind how connected Paul feels to his masculinity, he’s using the “they” in his pronoun set to try and absolve himself of his behavior. He can’t possibly be displaying toxic man behavior because he’s not a man. It’s a way of getting you to focus on coddling him because of his identity rather than addressing the actual problem.

    What can you do? Well, unfortunately in certain groups there’s a certain reluctance to state the actual truth, aka Paul you move through the world as a MAN and you are specifically being an ass to WOMEN and you need to cut it out. And if you can’t get it through your thick skull how to not be an ass to a subset of your colleagues then you need to leave. I don’t give a crap if you have some sort of diagnosis you can use as an excuse, shape up or get out.

    That kind of communication is not likely to go over well in leftist spaces that promote being inclusive or whatever. So you’ll probably need to soften the message a little bit. Something like “hey, you’re behaving aggressively with your colleagues and you need to stop. You’re behaving differently with person A, B, C than D and E. I know you’ve got some struggles with social situations but you need to dial things way back towards polite and friendly and not interrupting people until you figure this out, either with yourself or a therapist. If you can’t do that we’re going to need to ask you to leave.”

Comments are closed.