Declining to put my preferred pronouns in my email signature

Right. And the vast majority of us just opt out. Don’t do it. No fuss either way.

And some how, mysteriously - thanks to my name, tiny ID photo that comes up on all my email, and my general appearance - people refer to me as ‘she’ or ‘her’ when talking about me when I’m not around. Odd, isn’t it….

There is no need for me to state the obvious in my email signature.

If other people do need to inform people of their pronouns because they’re, say, male but wanted to be referred to as ‘she’ and ‘her’ when they’re being talked about, or they have a unisex name or androgneous appearance - more power to them, and they’re free to opt in and add pronouns to their email signature.

See how it works?

stayflufft
I’d be tempted to put ‘my pronouns are sex based, like my oppression’.

@janeinthewild "Oppression? You define adding pronouns to your email signature as oppression. What has the world come to?"

No, @janeinthewild , maybe you need to practice your reading comprehension.

Stayflufft is saying that her pronouns are sex based, like her oppression is sex based, because all over the world, women are oppressed because they are female (as in the actual biological sex female, not the personality/feeling/clothing choice type of female thats actually male)

God forbid you have to be seen anywhere near a r*nbow that is not on! What do you do when there's a rainbow in the sky, do you close all the curtains?

That explains why you don't seem to have understood the thread.

Try reading that post again and you will hopefully understand that you have misunderstood. @stayflufft is not stating that adding pronouns is oppression.

@SunnyEgg Yes, agreed mostly. I was referring to those who were suggesting things such as going to HR or making a childish joke of it by writing something silly.

It should be a choice

You can if you want to though

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread so someone may have suggested this already.

We have this where I work too, and it's not compulsory but very much encouraged. A friendly pro-pronouns colleague recently asked me what my preferred pronouns were as this wasn't indicated in my email signature. I just told her I have no preferred pronouns - people can use whatever pronouns they want. And I'm not writing "I have no preferred pronouns" in my signature as it's a rather meaningless statement.

Oppression? You define adding pronouns to your email signature as oppression. What has the world come to?

I’d be tempted to put ‘my pronouns are sex based, like my oppression’.

@AnarchoTyrannosaurus I just think it's rather immature to kick up such a big fuss over adding two words to your email signature. Everyone has to do things they don't want to in life and adding your pronouns is really not that hard

Shameful? Weird. Maybe you should read the thread again if that's what you've concluded from it.

Yes, I did and I still don't get the issue here. I am happy for people to refer to me as she/her and I don't understand why that's a shameful thing to make people aware of

Did you read the thread, jane?

I don't understand the issue here. What is wrong with pronouns, we all have them so what is the harm in including them?

@Whiteroomjoy

+1

As I think I said on another pronoun thread once, if pronouns are a choice I'll take the ones with the power thanks.

I’d put he/him. That’d probably piss off a lot of people. I then point out to anyone who cares to ask that by addressing me as him/he I’m then more likely to get taken seriously, be paid more, and have people listen to me.

my sex (female) is a handicap for my career progression, pay, pension becuase of unconcious bias, I do NOT prejudice how people perceive me , by announcing I’m female unless I bloody have to.

I sign all letters/emails to people who don’t know me with just my initials and surname - and 99% they are replied to with title MrJoy …funny that ….

So very well put! It saddens me that all this armchair virtue-signalling does nothing more than provide an excuse to polish self-adorned halos, dragging the small minority of genuinely intersex / trans ppl amongst us into the inevitable backlash.

Religious, professional and societal status, cultural affiliations and gender are generally made evident through personal appearance and/ or letters before / after a name. I.E. when it matters, the preferred means of address is usually clear and Mrs, Dr, Sister, Father, Rabbi, Bhante, Imam, Commander, Your Grace… etc. used as appropriate. If the 2% trans or non-binary folk want to specify a preference in how they’re addressed, it’s their choice to do likewise, so why all the fuss? Surely we can respect this without demanding unnecessary announcements from the 98% majority* of non-trans humans.

On the/ rare occasions it’s unclear and (and necessary to know) can’t people just… ask?🤷🏼‍♀️

• Source: worldpopulationreview.coment…

I'd rather be identified by my sex (as it is a biological given) than gender. Gender is such an abstract concept. Some of my traits are more feminine, some are more masculine. I dress in a more gender-neutral way. But I am a woman. And I'm ok with that.

I am an atheist so don't partake in religious worship. This is acceptable today as it's recognised that people have the freedom whether to follow a religion or not in this country. There are unfortunately still countries out there where it's compulsory with very heavy penalties for non compliance.

2000 years ago, the Christians came along and took pagan festivals and rebranded them as Christian ones to make people worship their god instead of the previous ones. There were the odd tweaks but a lot of it stayed the same. With Easter, they didn't even bother to change the name. If you celebrated Saturnalia then you were told that you were celebrating Christmas now.

TRAs have used the same tactic with pronouns. Everyone used them and they meant the same to everyone but now the new religion has made them part of the worship. People carry on using pronouns as they have done forever but suddenly it's been hijacked and you are supposed to state them to signify that you are not a heretic. Not believing in the new religion is not an option, public shaming, shunning and violence are very real punishments for not complying. Not quite the burn in hell for all eternity but you get the idea.

These problems have arisen because some people want to ignore fact and create an alternative reality for themselves. The pronoun range (him/his/her/hers, then they/them for groups) suits because it is based on fact.

Having to now flux when these words are used, whether new words are required, is because some people wish to completely ignore biological fact.

Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind that the OP could use. There's quite a lot more of it, and - as the suggestions on this thread demonstrate - a lot of different was to approach the situation.

It leads me to the rhetorical question: just WHAT is it about this issue in particular that brings out the woke virtue signallers? Sadly, I suspect that #bekind and TWAW and 'trans rights are human rights' is just MRA in disguise (and a not terribly good disguise at that).

Also one thing my friend has done is mention to her boss those studies about "sex priming", the things about how if women have to tick a box saying woman before they do a math test they do worse than if they don't have to disclose, because on some subconscious level they're aware that they're women proving the stereotype that women are bad at math. (works better if you're in a STEM field)

I would just answer really dryly and boring, like "is it optional?" and if it isn't, "is there a policy that says it isn't?" Maybe you could out-DEI them and go "is it ethical to force people to disclose pronouns if they happen to not be comfortable making them public?"

"Me and me mates went down the pub."

“My friends and I went to the pub”