Pronouns in email signatures - advice and arguments please

No, Asugarr, that's why 'I don't have any preferred pronouns so won't be putting them in my email signature' exists.

& as PP has clearly explained upthread, no sensible organisation will want the legal & HR nightmare of attempting to disclose information that a) they don't have b) they'd prefer to keep private or c) they recognise as prejudicial to their professional interests.

@ASugarr

Can you not accept that some people do not wish to engage in disclosing their pronouns?

Can you not accept that some people would find using they / them pronouns uncomfortable because they identify as she / her but don't wish to disclose that self identity to others?

I guess what I'm asking, genuinely, is whether you really believe this should be compelled and mandatory if people don't want to do it? What benefits are there for people who don't want to do it?

It's not really an argument but I spent 2 years without noticing I didn't have the organisation I worked with in my email signature (just the address) and nobody said anything.

The benefit of having a clear policy that you can put pronouns in your signature, but don't have to, is that when some people start doing it, other people don't think that they have to or that they have missed a meeting talking about it. So there's a good reason to say that people can do it if they like but it is a personal choice.

[quote youvegottenminuteslynn]@ASugarr

Harmful if someone just feels uncomfortable with labelling themselves.

Harmful if you have a gender neutral name and know you work in a misogynist organisation where women are treated differently then men.

Harmful if you don't believe in gender labels and are being compelled to use them.

Why do you object to pronoun disclosure being mandatory? If it's harmless to disclose them, what's the harm of someone saying they don't want to do so?[/quote]
I mean that's why they/them and neoprouns exist.

@ASugarr

Harmful if someone just feels uncomfortable with labelling themselves.

Harmful if you have a gender neutral name and know you work in a misogynist organisation where women are treated differently then men.

Harmful if you don't believe in gender labels and are being compelled to use them.

Why do you object to pronoun disclosure being mandatory? If it's harmless to disclose them, what's the harm of someone saying they don't want to do so?

But how are they harmful?
Which post of mine are you referring to here? The one about Yogyakarta principal 6?

I don't think it's relevant to the pronouns we are referring to here.

You were the one arguing that because they are used all the time, they cannot be harmful.
Thank you for admitting that was not a relevant argument.

In the large business I work for the pronouns-in-signature debate has been left to choice (many men/visibly woke women apply them). If they mandated it I would suggest that I am non-binary and so unsure of my current pronouns, thus insinuating that they are discriminating against me by forcing me to choose my pronouns.

Can you give me an example of a word where the level of harm changes depending on how frequently it's used?

declare your pronouns

What an incomprehensible phrase.

Here’s the crux of the matter - it’s not all about one person....

Am I the only person who doesn't read email signatures or social media bios? I would never notice this, which would render it even more pointless.
Actually I know that I am not the only person. I have a few colleagues who have their working hours in their email signatures and complain that these are ignored regularly.

ASugarr - so do you agree with me that 'how often a word is used' has no bearing on whether it's harmful or not?

From here, for the OP legalfeminist.org.uk/2020/07/19/pronouns-compulsion-and-controversy/

“ Insisting that employees put pronouns into their signature therefore leaves women who do not accept innate gender theory in a dilemma. They must either comply, aligning themselves with a political position they disagree with; or else reveal their political views in the workplace, which carries a risk of adverse consequences. We know that the popularity of innate gender theory means that those who take the contrary view may be visited with vile abuse, reported to their regulator, complained about to their employer, or even fired – so a woman who opposes innate gender theory may nevertheless feel obliged to comply through fear of losing her employment or being socially ostracised.”

What I would like to say is: "I do not believe that it is up to people to mandate how others see them or talk about them. Once you have demanded that, you then can't know what people actually think, and so it undermines the possibility of real validation."

But for emergencies for oppressive environments I have prepared this line:

"Trans people have mixed views on this. Some find it condescending or mocking. I think that overall it's best not to do something that makes some people so uncomfortable".

It's worth noting that this is a rote recital played out many many times and really not worth losing a strike over.

ASUgarr - you said the reason that using the words isn't harmful is because they are used frequently. I disagree that high frequency of usage means that words can't be harmful.

Words have meaning beyond how often they are used.

This is going to be another 1000 posts of gruyere, isn't it? 🤷🏻‍♀️

I've joined a new organisation recently where a large proportion of the workforce are of non-uk backgrounds. This is new to me, so their names are often unfamiliar (foreign) and I don't know whether they are male or female. It's not uncommon for me to be emailing one person relaying information that someone else has conveyed to me, and I've managed to cause confusion on a couple of ocassions by making the wrong assumptions about people's gender. I don't personally think it should be mandatory to declare your pronouns, but I do find it very helpful if people do. It's not just about trans rights.