Pronouns in my email signature

I’m going to start adding my star sign (astrology and Chinese star sign) to my emails now.

🐟 🐓

It's like inviting people over to paint your kitchen so they can relieve themselves of the anxiety and pain of knowing it's painted avocado green.

The two situations are in no way comparable. Absolutely nobody should have an avocado green kitchen. They would be doing you a major favour in painting it a different colour. I'm still living with the trauma of the avocado green bathroom suite in the first house I bought. It was years before I could afford to replace it.

"If people had their preferred pronouns on their email sign-offs there'd be no pressure or anxiety, and no faux pas, because you'd know how to refer to them."

What an interesting use of passive voice in the sentence above in the use of the words "there'd be no pressure or anxiety, and no faux pax." This sentence is so manipulative. First, it starts with the people who have their preferred pronouns on their emails. Then it moves on to the presumption that other people feel "pressure and anxiety" over about preferred pronouns, which is not in evidence. It presumes that strangers are highly concerned about preferred pronouns and worry about them as a faux pas. The last part is telling, too--"you'd know how to refer to them." This reflects an anxiety by the person being spoken about that may not be shared by the speaker. While most people tend to be reasonably courteous, they aren't generally that exercised about other people in the course of a day. if they just go about the course of their business. But they WILL find it annoying if people try to represent themselves as something that seems pretentious, odd, overly precious, or at odds with reality, especially if that person uses it as a cudgel. This is a solution to a problem that nobody cares about solving. It's like inviting people over to paint your kitchen so they can relieve themselves of the anxiety and pain of knowing it's painted avocado green.

All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe

Lordfrontpaw, is there even such a thing as a non trans women? asking for a friend. What you shared deserves its own thread.

I came across my first one recently. Here's an anonymised version:

[firstname [lastname]
[job title]
Pronouns: she/her
[company address]
[company address]
[company address]
[Direct line]
[Mobile]

I guess the pronoun issue would come up if you needed to talk about the person to someone else? e.g. 'Alex has been briefed and will send her/his/their findings to the group asap'. ?

When you reply to such an email you only use you/your surely?

Sorry if I sound a bit ignorant, but what does such an email signature look like? Is it literally Firstname Lastname, position, company, my preferred pronouns are: x/y/z? I’ve never seen one and am intrigued. Please could someone post an example, with actual names redacted as I really just can’t imagine it?

I much prefer 'they' as a neutral pronoun for an unknown or generic person than he/him/his which reinforces the male as default, woman as invisible or 'second sex'. This type of usage of 'they' has existed for centuries, including being used by Shakespeare, it's a sensible adaptation to the lack of a singular neutral personal pronoun. Rejection of this form is driven either by excessive pedantry or by the recent appropriation by 'nonbinaries' to signify their personal neutrality.

I have a vague memory of Clive Anderson on QI mentioning that in law the singular is generally accepted to include the plural, and the masculine to include the feminine ... although it might have been better put.

I wonder how the French or Italians deal with these issues, since they have to have their adjectives agree in gender with the nouns ?

Or maybe German is better, since it has a neuter ?

from The Writer:

There’s no singular pronoun in English that covers both sexes. So traditionally people have gone for ‘he’ or ‘his’ when they didn’t know if they were referring to a Larry or a Lucy – because we’ve always been a bit sexist like that. But singular ‘they’ has actually been around for a very long time: you can find it in Chaucer, Shakespeare and even the US Declaration of Independence. And it’s the 21st century now, so there’s no excuse for that kind of nonsense.

I have a load of journalism style guides and English usage books at home. Must have a review...

I think you should start a new thread for that FOI stuff Lordfrontpaw, it might get lost in here.

In related news, I came across this in the introduction to a book published in 1983 no less...

I have a name like that. The difference is, I don't start logging hate crimes and whining about literal violence if I get called "Christine". Or if someone uses "Sir" when they see "Chris".

I once worked with a lovely chap, whose "official name" was "FirstName" Ali. When he first introduced himself to me it was as "Ali", and for 2 years that's how we got on. Then a new person was employed who insisted on using Alis "FirstName". It confused everyone in the business and our clients. Quite aside from the etiquette of ignoring what Ali had explicitly asked to be called, I did wonder if there was some nasty racist undertone going on. If the new employee hadn't managed to get themselves dismissed before probation was up, I might have asked.

I also worked with a chap who refused to answer to "Dave". It was "David" or nothing. Even his directory entry in the email system was DAVID which stood out from everyone elses Normal Name.

You are, you non-trans woman, you.

Lordfrontpaw My jaw is dropping. I don't know if I am understanding this as well as I think I am, but if I amgood lord.

To me it's just like someone introducing themselves and saying 'Hi, I'm Christopher but everyone calls me Chris' so I know what to call them.

I have a name like that. The difference is, I don't start logging hate crimes and whining about literal violence if I get called "Christine". Or if someone uses "Sir" when they see "Chris".

And if people want to call me "bastard fuckface" behind my back, that's up to them. It's not my business to police it.

Why wouldn't you just put your preferred pronoun in? It's just makes life more welcoming and comfortable for trans and non binary ppl and causes no harm to anyone else.

It does. This ubiquitous bullshit harms women!!

I have a gender neutral name

So do I, although .... it's written in pink at the foot of my emails. Does that give the game away? Or just add a further layer of complexity?

I will refuse..and face disciplinary over it if needs be!

As will I.

I'd be more concerned that I currently have both a 'gender-neutral' name and a gender-neutral title that I worked damn hard for and that is useful to me professionally.

I prefer not to have to announce, 'But I'm female, so you can be sexist at me after all!' at the end of every email.

if I'm not any more worried about being referred to by the wrong pronoun than I am by having my given name misspelt, which happens to me all the time, why should I state my pronouns?
That's why I favour the option I mentioned above: that everyone CAN opt out if they want to.

When we are asked to include our preferred pronouns on our own email sign-off, rather than just agree to comply with requests to use someone else's preferred pronouns, it feels like being invite - or compelled - to enter an alternate reality.

It feels as if we are being signed up to a belief that gender is something as malleable as hair colour or skirt length. I don't feel comfortable with that, largely because it has a thin-end-of-the-wedge vibe about it that makes me want to resist.

I could be wrong about that, but if I'm not any more worried about being referred to by the wrong pronoun than I am by having my given name misspelt, which happens to me all the time, why should I state my pronouns?

My concerns are first that it makes me look as if I'm signed up to a set of beliefs I don't hold, secondly that companies and organisations seem to be committed to offering some kind of herd immunity or protective colouration to those whose pronouns are variants of the norm (Let's just make everyone do it and you won't be singled out) which should not be necessary in a democratic, equal and civilised society. Why isn't it enough for people to say they'll happily comply with any requests to use whatever is the latest version of others' preferred pronouns but prefer to leave their own pronouns to others.

If something's not broken, why should we be expected to exert ourselves to fix it, especially at work where there is always more than enough to do?

I'm not really understanding this thread. My whole approach to this issue is about not offending people, but here I seem to be offending people left right and centre

To me it's just like someone introducing themselves and saying 'Hi, I'm Christopher but everyone calls me Chris' so I know what to call them.

And I like Ihaventgottimeforthis's approach and think that everyone should also have the option to not have their pronouns on their sign-off.

Another thing I think really needs challenging more is this ‘it costs nothing’ idea.

I completely agree. Adding to your points, the contribution of explicitly stating you are female to unconscious bias, and the consequent negative impact on women's careers, means it very much does cost. Here is a research paper that discusses the impact of unconscious bias on women's careers. By including pronouns in our email signature, we are effectively activating the unconscious biases of the recipient.

Research also shows that gendered language increases bias against women here and here. These two articles advocate using gender neutral language to avoid bias.

There is no way in hell I am adding something to my email signature that activates unconscious bias against me and may ultimately impact on my career progression.

Another thing I think really needs challenging more is this ‘it costs nothing’ idea. Compelling speech costs people in terms of their personal integrity and human rights to hold beliefs, as well as the previously mentioned disability inclusion issues.