I don't want to add my pronouns at the end of an email, but I can't explain why...

It constitutes a political statement which has no place in your working environment, just as you would not add your party affiliation if you had one - imagine having to put "Conservative/Green/BNP as part of your email signature and having to "explain" (justify) why you would rather not.....

If I had the nerve I would put something like "she's the cat's mother, kindly use my name" on my email signature.

[quote EmbarrassingHadrosaurus]For me, it is compelled speech and signals compliance with an ideology from which I dissent.

All of the following is quoted from Vaclav Havel's 1978 essay where he has some prescient observations about mantras and the unthinking adoption of an ideology and the true cost of the absolution that it confers.

In an era when metaphysical and existential certainties are in a state of crisis, when people are being uprooted and alienated and are losing their sense of what this world means, this ideology inevitably has a certain hypnotic charm. To wandering humankind it offers an immediately available home: all one has to do is accept it, and suddenly everything becomes clear once more, life takes on new meaning, and all mysteries, unanswered questions, anxiety, and loneliness vanish. Of course, one pays dearly for this low-rent home: the price is abdication of one’ s own reason, conscience, and responsibility, for an essential aspect of this ideology is the consignment of reason and conscience to a higher authority.
…
The manager of a fruit-and-vegetable shop places in his window, among the onions and carrots, the slogan: "Workers of the world, unite!" Why does he do it? What is he trying to communicate to the world? Is he genuinely enthusiastic about the idea of unity among the workers of the world? Is his enthusiasm so great that he feels an irrepressible impulse to acquaint the public with his ideals? Has he really given more than a moment's thought to how such a unification might occur and what it would mean?

I think it can safely be assumed that the overwhelming majority of shopkeepers never think about the slogans they put in their windows, nor do they use them to express their real opinions. That poster was delivered to our greengrocer from the enterprise headquarters along with the onions and carrots. He put them all into the window simply because it has been done that way for years, because everyone does it, and because that is the way it has to be. If he were to refuse, there could be trouble. He could be reproached for not having the proper decoration in his window; someone might even accuse him of disloyalty. He does it because these things must be done if one is to get along in life. It is one of the thousands of details that guarantee him a relatively tranquil life "in harmony with society," as they say.

Obviously the greengrocer is indifferent to the semantic content of the slogan on exhibit; he does not put the slogan in his window from any personal desire to acquaint the public with the ideal it expresses. This, of course, does not mean that his action has no motive or significance at all, or that the slogan communicates nothing to anyone. The slogan is really a sign, and as such it contains a subliminal but very definite message. Verbally, it might be expressed this way: "I, the greengrocer XY, live here and I know what I must do. I behave in the manner expected of me. I can be depended upon and am beyond reproach. I am obedient and therefore I have the right to be left in peace." This message, of course, has an addressee: it is directed above, to the greengrocer's superior, and at the same time it is a shield that protects the greengrocer from potential informers. The slogan's real meaning, therefore, is rooted firmly in the greengrocer's existence. It reflects his vital interests. But what are those vital interests?

Let us take note: if the greengrocer had been instructed to display the slogan "I am afraid and therefore unquestioningly obedient;' he would not be nearly as indifferent to its semantics, even though the statement would reflect the truth.

hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/the-power-of-the-powerless-vaclav-havel-2011-12-23[/quote]
This is wonderful, thank you for the link.

*EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

I had to write an email today in which I was introducing members of different departments to eachother.

Because they belong to departments with a high uptake of pronouns in the email signature, I was faced with checking through the details of 20+ people in order to write a brief description of them and their responsibilities in order to crosscheck that I was using these pronouns. I ended up writing a somewhat odd piece of text instead so that I could avoid pronouns. I felt the burden of getting this right because I'm senior to everyone involved and I didn't want to be reported for any misuse/oversight.

It's actually made me reconsider the overhead of doing something like this in the future because an optional task that held no value for me but potentially did for the recipients could easily have turned into a 1hour+ task*

Hmm, yes I hadn't thought about that scenario.

How about dropping the pronouns altogether?
'Joe Bloggs is Jobtitle in the Whatever department. Bloggs' remit is This and That. Feel free to approach Joe with any queries.'

And apologies if this is a repeat link.

@MrsPsmalls I have not read all your thread, but this has just landed in my in box. Sex Matters is the organisation founded by Maya Forstater, and which is doing absolutely sterling work for GC women (please support them if you can). Hopefully this guide will be of some help to you and others.

Sex Matters Guide to Pronouns at Work

Surely non-binary and agender are just GNC and young. I mean we're all trans according to the widest interpretation. Unless there are really real pink-unicorn-weak-submissive-cupcake-Prosecco-housework-girly-girls out there. I've never seen one in its natural habitat.

Yeah, logically trans ideology is the opposite of non binary and vice versa, but they don’t seem to see it!

How can anyone identify as trans and non-binary?!

I'm merely reporting what we've seen. I can not begin to claim it's a coherent viewpoint or one that I intuitively grasp beyond the fact that people assert it.

However, I can understand if people see non-binary as a category under the general 'transgender' umbrella.

Ask them to describe the taste of water (imagining the other person hasn’t ever tasted water).

@EmbarrassingHadrosaurus

That might be OK for the transgender people who don't also claim non-binary status. There are people who identify both as trans and non-binary who may state pronouns that are different to the presentation.

How can anyone identify as trans and non-binary?! So they claim that their 'gender identity' does not 'align' with their sex (ie they 'feel' as if they were the opposite sex) yet they do not identify as male or female either?!

In all honesty I feel like I have spent most of my working life as a woman battling to survive in a Male dominated environment. I will be damned if I'm going to draw extra attention to my sexy as result. It is irrelevant to my ability to do my job and I have spent my whole career proving that. If someone isn't sure of my pronouns then A they are fucking stupid and B they can ask me

"I'm really sorry but it makes me uncomfortable, I dont want to get into it." You could also say how it's like how you don't want to put other personal information.

I've never understood the logic of this. If transpeople want to be identified as a woman (for example) they take a woman's name don't they? So everyone knows to call them "she/her" without them putting it in their email signature 🤷‍♀️

Because they belong to departments with a high uptake of pronouns in the email signature, I was faced with checking through the details of 20+ people in order to write a brief description of them and their responsibilities in order to crosscheck that I was using these pronouns. I ended up writing a somewhat odd piece of text instead so that I could avoid pronouns. I felt the burden of getting this right because I'm senior to everyone involved and I didn't want to be reported for any misuse/oversight.

It's actually made me reconsider the overhead of doing something like this in the future because an optional task that held no value for me but potentially did for the recipients could easily have turned into a 1hour+ task.

Perhaps because, since third person pronouns are rarely used in your presence, you don't feel the need to control conversations that you are not part of? Why does anyone?

I find that many of the people who think stating their pronouns, etc is inclusive seem to believe we're living in a post-misogynistic society and that sexism is solved now because "women have the same rights as men".

10 years ago there would be at least a thread a week on this board from an MRA (or Dominic Raab with time on his hands??) putting forward this argument.

The only thing that has changed is that the people making the argument now identify as progressive.

I’d refuse because it’s stupid. If you call me ‘Mr’ I don’t give a rats. If you call me ‘he’ you are making some pretty wild assumptions. Either way, I would correct and move on (and think you a fool).

I’m too old, and too old-school feminist to put up with this.

I would refuse on the basis that I do not have any pronouns, if my company mandated such things.

I dislike getting emails from men with their pronouns it comes over like willy waving, and a bit mansplainy

Yes, I agree - it's comes across as "I know you don't know because we're on email, so just to reassure you: I am a man and therefore do know what I'm talking about,"

Even though obviously no-one means for it to come across this way, it's so shit for women because most of us experience negative messaging around being a woman every day of our lives, so to be reminded of women's oppression, when we just want to be treated like a competent accountant or an engineer or whatever, is so disheartening. The men who aren't arrogant pricks obviously have no idea what it's like for women, as why would they?

I find that many of the people who think stating their pronouns, etc is inclusive seem to believe we're living in a post-misogynistic society and that sexism is solved now because "women have the same rights as men". Just because they'd like it to be the case, it doesn't make it true - I think lots of people think it perpetuates sexism to point it out, so instead they pretend it doesn't exist, in the misguided view that it's the inclusive thing to do to pretend women have equality.

Requiring pronouns forces people to out themselves at work before they are ready.

Requiring pronouns has been shown to disadvantage women in the workplace.

It is easy enough to avoid personal pronouns in most circumstances and pronouns are never required when replying to a person by email.

So it is really pointless but also potentially harmful to several minority groups.

I dislike getting emails from men with their pronouns it comes over like willy waving, and a bit mansplainy