The look at me of pronouns

Do you have similar concerns about this putting women in a very awkward position re: sexual discrimination in the workplace?

In my workplace I don’t think it’s really an issue - women are over represented at most levels, and equally represented at the top level (and in fact our top person is a woman), and reports of sex/gender based discrimination are low.

More generally I’d be surprised if pronouns in email signatures made a significant difference to levels of sex/gender based discrimination against women - as many people have pointed out, the majority of people have names that indicate their sex/gender. Also, surely most of the people who have the position or power to discriminate against us are people we’ve interacted with other than by email?

I don’t understand why you need to announce your sexuality in the context of a work meeting. Don’t you just go to work…to work?? Why is anyone interested in what their colleagues choose to do in private, outside work and with whom?

This is what I don’t understand.

If you are a woman, you will have been referred to as she since the moment you were born.

Because they have chosen it. They may well choose based on feelings, not bio.

I’ve never in my life met anyone whose pronouns aren’t obvious…what kind of organisation do you work for where it’s often - your word - not obvious?

As I said, this is in the context of meetings related to the LGBT+ network, for example there was one recently specifically focused on people with non-binary sexuality or gender - eg bisexual or pansexual, and non-binary or gender queer. Those types of meetings tend to have a higher than average proportion of people attending who you couldn’t reliably guess their pronouns.

You’re referred to as she because you’re a biological woman.

Oh my - autocorrect working overtime today (but you get the gist).

All yourself what you like. Pronouns are sex based. Girl babies aren’t aborted in the 000s on the basis of their feelings. Rapists don’t choose their victims in how they describe themselves ;and they always know what we’d they target).

So why change to a ‘how I feel’ descriptor? Because how you feel can change. We’d can’t.

You're seen as a woman "in social terms" because you are a woman in biological terms.

If you're not a woman in biological terms, then it's highly unlikely that anyone sees you as a woman at all in any terms whatsoever. Hence the coercive pressure on people to adopt "your" pronouns and pretend you're something you're not so as to avoid a HR incident.

Do you have similar concerns about this putting women in a very awkward position re: sexual discrimination in the workplace?

Because its the way language is. You don’t refer to people by their star sign, hair colour of health do you? Why the push to change it?

But surely the fact that I am referred to as ‘she’ reflects that I am seen as a woman in social terms, it’s not dependent on my biology.

@Waitwhat23 clearly the Scottish civil service and government are taking a different approach to my organisation. I am definitely against mandating it, not least because that would put those who may be unsure of their gender or what pronouns they want to be referred to by, or who are not ready to disclose that they are trans, in a very awkward position.

Because its the way language is. You don’t refer to people by their star sign, hair colour of health do you? Why the push to change it?

Pronouns are sex based not ‘gender’

Why do you think that? I can’t see any reason why the nature of my chromosomes or genitals should necessitate people referring to me in a particular way.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4307160-8-000-civil-servants-to-be-asked-to-include-pronouns-in-email-sign-offs

From the thread -

The Scottish Government is backing proposals that would ask its 8,000 workers to take a “pronoun pledge” under which they would add terms reflecting their gender identity, such as she/her or he/him, to signatures at the bottom of every work email.

Some people who class themselves as non-binary prefer pronouns such as they/them, while others prefer “non standard” terms such as “zie” or “zir”, which civil servants would be free to use.

Supporters of the plan to “normalise the inclusion” of pronouns have said this would “foster an open culture that is supportive of the LGBTI+ community”.

*However, the plan has provoked opposition from civil servants, after an internal survey set up to gauge opinion provoked a row which left some workers in tears.

Almost 60 per cent did not want to add pronouns to their emails, the results showed.

Meanwhile, campaigners raised fears that workers could feel pressurised to comply with the “stupid” and “authoritarian” policy, which has been backed by the Scottish Government but is yet to be rolled out.

Comments written by workers expressing concerns alongside the internal poll were dismissed as “disappointing” by Leslie Evans, Scotland's top civil servant, in a meeting with staff last month.*

The Scottish Government are making it clear that it's not a matter of individuals choice. I've seen many posters saying that that their HR departments are insisting that their staff add pronouns to their email signature and asking for advice for how to challenge this.

I'm not going to take active steps to make it more easy for people to discriminate aginst me as a woman. That's not 'inclusive' for women.

Pronouns are sex based not ‘gender’. This isn’t a LGB thing - this is a recent trend.

People aren’t harassed and bullied for adding their pronouns - but there are plenty of people who feel bullied by not doing so. I cannot support a movement that is so inward thinking and yet so unselfaware.

Just to balance this up a bit - my organisation employs around 2000 people, and on the basis of the sample of emails I receive from people in various areas I’d say roughly overall half of them state their preferred pronouns in their email signatures (me included). I’ve seen pieces posted on our intranet by people explaining why they do it, and one explaining why they don’t. I haven’t been aware of any adverse judgement directed at people who don’t do it, and the organisation makes it clear it’s entirely a matter of individual choice. I am very involved in the organisation’s LGBT+ network, and when I’ve attended meetings in that context with people I haven’t met before we tend to start by introducing ourselves and stating our pronouns - there are often people present whose preferred pronouns aren’t obvious from their name or the way they present.

I’m not a brainwashed lemming or a naive child. I’m a professional in my 30s and I’ve thought carefully about my position on this. I suggest you hesitate before making judgements about people based purely on their decision to include their preferred pronouns in their email signature, just as I don’t make assumptions about people just because they don’t do it.

Oh I just remembered my gruff biker brother was referred to as ‘a lassie’ from behind when he was a young man - long flowing locks (and he had a sleight frame). He wasn’t amused.

DS2 used to have shoulder length hair and quite often used to be announced by the female version of his name when show jumping. He coped.

I have been mis-sexed a handful of times as a teenager. This was back in the 80s (fashion being as it was back then) and got called ‘son’.

I found it most amusing. I did not die.

How often do you misgender or indeed mis-sex someone though? I don't think I have ever done this. There has been the very unusual circumstance where I haven't been sure - although the person's sex has been clear - and I have just been very careful not to assume.

I have not been asked at work yet, but I see it often on IG and puts me off immediately.

Now, I have a question - in English you can use the argument that pronouns are not needed when you are talking directly to that person. That's not the same in Spanish, my native language, as there are male/female adjectives, so when you talk to someone directly you do imply their sex.

I might be wrong but I feel this makes it more difficult to argue agains it?