Why do we need pronouns when we have names?

I am primary. Ks1 and 2.
The poster informing us girls and boys was transphobic is in their own words, 'young adults'. I'm guessing KS3 and 4 by the content discussed. This was in another thread.

But we are talking about a theoretical workplace, maybe yours, not this site. I thought we were trying to apply this in the real world, not the black and white of MN. It may be that most commonly expressed reason here, but in a real workplace you’re likely to encounter a whole range of different people of both sexes who see no need to put pronouns in their email signature. Are they all behaving unacceptably?

I’m interested to know how this would be challenged, under what rule would it be considered unacceptable, apart from your own moral objection, and if and why you think this should be enforced in real life.

Just take a step back for a second: do you honestly believe people - women or men - should be punished at work for refusing to be compelled to comply with putting pronouns in their email signature? Do you not see any authoritarianism in that at all?

But let's say you have to refer to the child to other staff...

I would call a boy “him” and a girl “her”. If a colleague thought I was wrong I would be glad to discuss it.

...or pupils

More difficult. I would use the child’s name and would not welcome a discussion about it.

HipTight is not bad, but her personal views being more important than that of a child is concerning yes.

And yes, FWIW, I would also ask why I am having to declare my pronouns when it's blindingly obvious that my first name belongs to a female.

I have no issue with people who can't. I have an issue with people who won't. Posters who actively said I won't becuase I don't believe in it. That's my opinion and I'm allowed it. I'm not assuming any motivations and have repeatedly said that each case is different!

And you started here saying if people won't you expect expect punishment and you want that to become increasingly onerous. So you are choosing what you believe are good and bad motivations. HipTight is bad because her values make her uncomfortable lying. Others who won't are bad because you assume they would deliberately misgender if they said they would or not.

I simply can't be bothered. I think the whole thing is a pointless drama. Is that motivation one that should be disciplined?

HipTight was equating the feelings of a child to her own beliefs about lying.

It’s true I would feel bad about lying but it’s not about my feelings. I was considering the right of all the children not to be lied to by people they are supposed to trust.

I am far from convinced that it is in the best interests of the particular child in question either.

As for "girls" and "boys" being "transphobic" - what a load of fucking ridiculous nonsense.

Fwiw, I'dd challenge a man the same way.

No I'm not. It's just more likely to be a woman I challenge because....it's a predominantly female site.

Not true.

Are you primary ? I thought you said you were sec. I have way more sympathy for primary.

But I'm not assigning any motives.

But let's say you have to refer to the child to other staff or pupils.

I often try and use the name where possible, but it isn't always do able.

Thank you Scepticaltank

I honestly don't know how I would handle the situation - probably try to avoid using any pronouns other than “you” and use the child’s name instead.

I would certainly refuse to declare “my” pronouns in my email signature. My first response would be to ask why, and what they are supposed to signify.

Ooh I like that expression. I'm keeping that.

It's a good idea to reflect on it because you might stop assigning motives if you can realise that the extreme self consciousness young people have fades over time and therefore being "triggered" by apparent "micro aggressions" simply loses it's power over time.

HipTightOnions, I don't know how those of us who teach littlies are meant to proceed. We've got people telling us to refer to people as cervix Havers etc.
Fine and dandy. I'm teaching people who don't realise that if they can't find their willy for a wee, it doesn't mean it's gone. Most refer to their bits as noo boo and front bottoms.
How on earth I'm meant to navigate boys/girls/inclusive language etc. whilst keeping things clear, truthful and matter of fact, I have no idea. A poster recently was suggesting vulva owners for pshe and that girls and boys was transphobic. How on earth are ks1 and 2 meant to impart the knowledge needed with all these unnecessary language barriers. I get your predicament, thankfully, it's not spread to primary enmasse yet.

Not sure where I said only women should be punished

I never said you said “only women” but you said (just further up the page, I’m not keeping records):

I think that refusing to do it based on because I'm a woman and I don't want to is wrong

Why did you just use “woman”? Why didn’t your example also include men who might not comply with this ideology too? Why didn’t you say people? Are you implying that it’s much more likely to be women who refuse to comply? If so, why is that?

I wish people would read what I bloody said.

I have no issue with people who can't. I have an issue with people who won't. Posters who actively said I won't becuase I don't believe in it. That's my opinion and I'm allowed it. I'm not assuming any motivations and have repeatedly said that each case is different!

HipTight was equating the feelings of a child to her own beliefs about lying. I have an issue with that from a member of school staff.

Opinions are allowed.

And I am referring to you presuming because they don't put pronouns in their emails you can ASSUME they would not use them for others deliberately. You are assuming HipTightOnions won't when all that was said was "dreading it".

You really are assuming across the board motives in a very prejudiced way. That's what is so ugly about the whole trend. Do it or we will assume you have bad motives and we want there to be bad consequences to your ability to earn a living. Something which no contract of employment is actually permitted to do in the UK or the USA.

I don't think accidental misgendering is wrong. I think deliberate refusal is.

Yes, I think it's unacceptable.

Not sure where I said only women should be punished 🥺

And here we go, the age old incomparable women can't say no routine. Always pulled out to shut down the argument.

I don’t know what this means. But you’ve expressed that you’re of the opinion that anyone who doesn’t agree with pronouns in their own email signature is behaving unacceptably in the workplace. You don’t think people should be compelled to do so, but to not do so out of a personal belief, particularly if they’re a woman, is behaving unacceptably.

I’m not trying to shut down any arguments, you have already decided women need punishment for wrongthink before it even happens. It’s scary.

Actually, there's nothing in the teaching standards about using pronouns.
Respecting individuals is there. Which is what names are for. Yet most parents are understanding if I occasionally get their child's particular variant wrong. Pronouns on the other hand, are inviting victimhood and create more problems than they solve. Steamrollering people who don't use the correct ones as wrong think lacks understanding of why it happens. I actually think if this pronoun pouncing continues all that will happen is that sex based and neopronouns will fall out of use, replaced by names. Which will make things clunky, difficult and will validate noone.
Quite an own goal.