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

I don't think anyone should be made to label themselves.

I find the thought behind this (if there is any thought) so muddled. What trans person outs themself by putting pronouns in their email? Aren’t they going to change how they dress, change their name etc?
If I get an email about someone called Julia or Sarah I’m naturally going to call them ‘she’ in the reply. It’s only attention seekers who are going to get pissy at you calling someone she who is called Sarah who is clearly female.

I would be honest and state that women are discriminated against due to their sex and bringing additional attention to this by adding pronouns to emails will increase the incidence of unconscious bias against all women.

I too would say this.
It’s all very well just saying “I don’t wish to” but it doesn’t educate anyone re the other side of this. This “inclusivity” person will have been trained by Stonewall they do need to hear how their approach actually does not always make sense for everyone, especially women!

‘I don’t want to’.

How exactly is you doing this making a blind bit of difference to anyone else?

Someone is after their stonewall points, eh?

I would avoid the faux engagement in the gender ideology pretending you are protecting those trans people unable to declare their pronouns or pretending that you are have a closet trans identity.

I would be honest and state that women are discriminated against due to their sex and bringing additional attention to this by adding pronouns to emails will increase the incidence of unconscious bias against all women.

By stating pronouns, there is an implication that you subscribe to gender stereotypes inherent in the current narrative around the female gender. You believe that assuming stereotypes on behalf of anyone, whatever their sex, beliefs, presentation or sexual orientation is harmful and that everyone should be accepted on face value as a defacto human capable of equal contribution to society.

To use @OvaHere's wondeful words.. pronoun culture is a tool that reinforces sexism and inequality. I would add, and further oppresses women without liberating those who do not identify with the very gender stereotypes they seek to escape.

In rejecting the stereotypes that proponents of the pronoun culture believe are imposed on them by their sex, they simply succeed in imposing those stereotypes on others, further entrenching a narrative of gender binary rather than dismantling it.

(Though a simple.. no thank you.. might be quicker..)

Here from sex matters

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/pronouns/

Be more Esther on GB News -

I have thought about it, I choose to ignore it.

t.co/ToxyO0TVwp

She actually works for me and inclusivity is an add on to her regular job.

It's interesting isn't it? Add "inclusivity" to a job and all it results in is time wasters pushing the latest witless dogma they've stumbled across.

It's become a joke.

[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]
Love this! I'm torn between sending a link to Vaclav's essay and putting (sex- based pronouns like my oppression ) when next asked.

Just say you're not sure what your gender identity is and you don't want to commit to anything. And you're not sure if you'll ever be brave enough to come out publicly. But seeing she/her at the end of your emails would make you feel terrible.

You don't even have to lie. Being a bit wibbly and tremorous might help though.

yogyakartaprinciples.org/principle-6/

It goes against the Yogyakarta principles and ones right to privacy.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58924168?at_medium=RSS&at_campaign=KARANGA

Considering the abuse and threats that female people get online I would never make a point of putting she/her pronouns anywhere. It only draws attention to the fact that you are a woman.

Other issues aside, it contravenes Yogyakarta Principle 6f if you're pushed for a reason.

6f (Principle 6 is all about LGBT people's right to privacy) states:

Ensure the right of all persons ordinarily to choose when, to whom and how to disclose information pertaining to their sexual orientation or gender identity, and protect all persons from arbitrary or unwanted disclosure, or threat of disclosure of such information by others.

You could then say: I don't feel comfortable making these disclosures about myself and you should not be nudging me to do so.

This is an appropriate workaround for anyone who is not in a workplace that would support a 'protected belief' or 'I dissent from gender ideology' discussion.

Just say you feel uncomfortable adding your pronouns at this time. And refer them to the relevant section of the Yogyakarta principles about not requiring people to share their pronouns

I said I would prefer not to for personal reasons and left it at that (work for a not for profit, not NHS). Nothing more was said. As your her manager, could you say similar - you’re choosing not to, and others in your team can include them or not. I wouldn’t get drawn into giving more reasons or any kind of debate.

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

I don't want to is enough of a reason for me.

Just ignore it, what's she gonna do?

Just a couple of people in my org have started with the she/her thing (both very obviously women). I doubt I'll ever be forced to but if it came to that my pronouns will be N/A or X/X

*I would NOT declare any belief at work political, spiritual, philosophical or religious.

A useful thread

twitter.com/TidyStewart/status/1446831103789211650

threader.app/thread/1446831103789211650

A virtual work meeting. The facilitator asked us all to share our name and pronouns. Of the 13 people present, the only ones to share their ‘she/her’ pronouns were obvious women. None of the men present did. Other than the initial request, there was no pressure. 1/6

One of the women already had pronouns displayed in her username. The effect of this was to create a really odd sense that the women had made a submissive gesture and the men had not. 2/6

In discussions at work about pronouns, the solution proposed to this has often been to ‘normalize declaring pronouns’ so that everyone feels they should comply with the request. So the women are attempting to ‘model’ this compliance. So far, so gendered. 3/6

When I have been in meetings where a man does declare he/him-ness, it simply exacerbates this sense of domination vs compliance. You have a woman underlining that she is a woman & a man announcing that he is a man. It underscores disparities & does nothing to dispel them. 4/6

I still do not comply, but this particular meeting was the first time I had felt the swivel of curious eyes on me for not announcing that I was a woman, while there were none scrutinizing the men who felt free to disregard the silly request. 5/6

It spoke chillingly to me about how pronoun culture is a tool that reinforces sexism and inequality. The men still spoke over the women and dominated the discussion too. So it was just like any other mixed sex meeting, except the women had signalled their submission first. 6/6

Good one @NecessaryScene 👍