Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Physical descriptions in the office, a No-Go?

33 replies

wand3rer · 04/07/2025 01:16

Bit of an odd one. I’ve been out of the corporate world for over a decade and a lot has changed 😁

My issue is that I’m awful at remembering names, which makes it tricky to refer to someone I’ve just chatted with. I’m usually fine once I’ve seen names around on Teams or in emails. But, early on, I sometimes have to describe people and I’m unsure what is considered okay these days.

For example, the last time I said “a lady who is a little shorter than me with curly hair”. The reaction I got was a bit stiff as if I’d said something off. Just to be clear, the lady was white (I didn't mean afro hair or anything culturally specific).

It made me wonder... Are we avoiding physical descriptions altogether now? What is the right way to handle this? 🙏

  • Unreasonable: don't use any physical description
  • Reasonable: physical descriptors are fine as long as not loaded with negative or biased undertones
OP posts:
wand3rer · 04/07/2025 03:30

@JMSA
I thought that too 😅

OP posts:
fount · 04/07/2025 02:57

I can't see how anything you said could be offensive unless someone was going out of their way to be offended. I'd try not to worry about it. The person with the weird attitude is probably just... weird! There's certainly no shortage of the type, these days.

GarlicMetre · 04/07/2025 02:46

... sorry for addendum: having forced myself to think of exactly what I'd say in your situation, I would say 'person' but also 'she'. So, something like 'the payroll person, she's s little shorter than me with curly hair'.

I realise I very rarely specified a person's sex, other than by pronouns.

GarlicMetre · 04/07/2025 02:43

Casting a little spanner in the works here - I can't see that 'curly hair' could cause any sort of offence (as long as it's not a veiled reference to 'race') and you compared her height to your own in an inconsequential way. I'm wondering if the jarring word was 'lady'?

In some/many environments now, it's considered dangerous to assume anybody's sex 🙄 Moreover, 'lady' isn't widely used and might be perceived by a prickly type as patronising or something.

I flatly refuse to de-sex everyone but, if you're anxious to be inoffensive, try it.

B1anche · 04/07/2025 02:32

The trouble with physical descriptions is that you never know what might upset someone, so they are probably best avoided.

I mean, it is obvious not to refer to someone as 'large', 'short', 'grey', 'old', 'bald', 'the one with the beard' (if female) etc, but people have all sorts of hang ups about their appearance. I would stick to referring to where they sit or the colour of their clothes.

Brightasarainbow · 04/07/2025 02:10

ByLimeAnt · 04/07/2025 01:54

Have you tried referencing by clothing? I can't recognise faces but as I get to know people I recognise their style of clothing which is usually effective. Voices when particularly well fit me and with some people body language.

I agree with this.

You're description sounded fine in itself, but I can easily see how you could get yourself into hot water. E.g. if you worked with someone with a visible disability, both mentioning and not mentioning it could be taken offence to if you're describing their physical characteristics. Outfits are a lot more neutral as descriptors.

ByLimeAnt · 04/07/2025 01:54

Have you tried referencing by clothing? I can't recognise faces but as I get to know people I recognise their style of clothing which is usually effective. Voices when particularly well fit me and with some people body language.

JMSA · 04/07/2025 01:19

Your description sounds pretty inoffensive to me!