It has happened.. pronouns have reached my workplace

Oh I missed that link, thank you.

I personally refuse to give power to a minority within a minority. Here in the UK we need to stop giving in . We will end up like the non-sense happening in the US.

Dishwashervodka

References imbedded in the legal feminist link up thread.

Also the one widely referenced rationale for declaring pronouns is:

S T Russell et al (2018) Chosen Name Use is Linked to Reduced Depressive Symptoms, Suicidal Ideation and Suicidal Behaviour Among Transgender Youth. journal of adolescent health.

But the article refers to using the trans person’s chosen given name - not for us to all declare our preferred pronouns. Conflating two very different things.

I’m at the Bar - when I see this from fellow barristers I despair and also consider their ability to adhere to our code of conduct to be rather questionable

• do nothing to bring the profession into disrepute,

act with honesty and integrity,

do not pursue an argument you know to be unarguable,

draw contrary authorities to the attention of the court,

maintain your indépendance from improper pressure etc etc.

In fact I’d love the professional conduct committee to receive a complaint about fundamental breaches being displayed in this way !?

I'm in academia. When I see pronouns in an email signature, I immediately fear that the individual has a limited grasp of reality and therefore may not be the best candidate for any project funding I might be in control of assigning. Not sorry.

Please, can someone send me the links to these studies? My workplace isn't doing pronouns yet, but I can feel them hanging over me like the Sword of Damocles.

Timely thread as this is beginning to come close to complied in my profession thanks op. thanks also for that link uppity
Heron
Pronoun Bird !!!

Just to qualify my thoughts slightly, obviously I think that everyone should be respected in the workplace but I don’t think it is ok for the individual to dictate the ‘mode’ of respect.

We would not find it acceptable if the boss decided that after using her name all employees should add, ‘o hail thee’ to denote their respect to her. It might make her feel good and some people might even agree to it but is it acceptable for her to demand that?

This keeps being framed as ‘oh, it’s such a small thing and if it helps people, that’s great’ but it isn’t a small thing - it requires a person to sign up to a whole ideology that may deeply conflict with their personal beliefs (biological fact aside) - that is quite a big ask. There are no other groups in the workplace that dictate how other people refer to them (afaik?) - not the bosses, not religious people - I don’t think anyone?
So why is one group treated so differently that everyone else has to change?

There’s one woke young bloke at my work who uses he / him, & I’ve seen it from a couple of other men - both actual men - on LinkedIn / Twitter.

It’s currently optional for us, & seeing pronouns in someone’s signature makes me wince a bit, especially when it’s someone I thought was sensible. I’m storing all the arguments up in case they decide to enforce it.

They'd have to talk about me like this:

'So I emailed Corvus yesterday to request wanker's pronouns, but I don't think fuck was very happy & I might have made off quite cross'.

I see it in responses I get from mailings I send out. Like pp I’m yet to see a ‘he/him’.

I’d be interested to see a study to see if enforced pronoun use has an impact on productivity for all employees.

The act of having to stop your train of thought and focus on correcting a very basic part of your speech (and any ensuing side conversations caused) can only be detrimental to the work rates/meeting effectiveness etc.

If it was discovered that this results in a decrease in productivity and focus for questionable gain (some people may not want to be ‘outed’/not relevant to 99.9% of people), company management might take a different view. Presumably it wouldn’t be a difficult or expensive experiment to conduct?

KeyIndexAug

It doesn’t affect all - but has the potential to affect people on the autistic spectrum disproportionally - and therefore falls into discrimination. It was given as an example because it something I am indirectly familiar with.

My niece is on the autistic spectrum and she will not be able to refer to anyone beyond he and her - and only when it is factually correct - irrespective of what is put in email signatures.

My response will simply be 'I do not have preferred pronouns'.

I like this, because it's true. I don't prefer she/her I just see them as appropriate to my sex. If someone wants to use he/him about me then that's weird but fine.

I got the dreaded order a couple of months ago. I deleted it. If anyone asks, I'll be asking if they want me to broadcast my race, religion and sexuality too, remind them of the narrow circumstances when they can collect such sensitive personal data, and ask when they can force me to broadcast it to the world. Plus of course the principle of data minimisation.

I haven't been asked to do this yet but it could happen.
My response will simply be 'I do not have preferred pronouns'.

I agree with previous posters who suggest keeping responses brief. "I'll give it some thought". "I'll look into it when I've got time". "I'm a little uncomfortable with this. I would like this directive in writing from my line manager". "I'd like to see how this sits with the code of ethics of my professional association". Or smile, say nothing and don't get around to doing it. I also like RosesAnd suggestion of using Miss Ms Mrs and last name. I would also be wary of anyone who states pronouns, keeping communication non personal, polite, professional and brief.

A good synopsis here which touches on many the points already mentioned by PPs.

legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

As discussed - is against GDPR and an individual’s right to freedom/privacy of belief. It is discriminatory against anyone who doesn’t subscribe to the ideology, women, staff who are autistic etc and any person questioning/distressed by their gender and who are not ready to ‘out’ themselves.

I will say no thank you or ‘woman’.

@TitOfTheIceberg made me snort with laughter, at both your post, and your name. Thank you - so needed that today

I may have posted about this before but pronouns came up in the introductions on a training course at my (very woke) place of work last year. I introduced myself with my name and job title and then smiled at the next person to move the conversation on. The trainer prompted "and your preferred pronouns?" and I simply said "no thank you, I'm not ready to share my pronouns, but I won't take offence however you choose to refer to me". There wasn't a big fuss made and I'm quite content with leaving them thinking I'm in the grip of a very quiet identity crisis (and may turn up any day now demanding to known as Wayne von Hairychest ).

How about adding a preferred noun instead? (On in addition)

Pronoun: She / her
Noun: Woman

Workplaces don't have the legal right to make people announce their transgender status - which is in effect what this would be doing for at least some people, whose rights are as valid as anyone else's. In fact broadcasting anyone's transgender status could be a breach of GDPR.

Then I would assume that compelling some to reveal their non-transgender status would be, to borrow a word, a "problematic" thing for an employer to do.