Request to share pronouns

I'm not a linguist, but a speaker of multiple languages. I once tried to explain it to DH (mostly monoglot) something like this:

Your name is yours because it's what you would be called in any language. Pronouns are not yours because they're a function of the language being used, and if they could be said "belong" to anyone, they'd "belong" to the person speaking the language.

So if you said "My name is Balonz, my pronouns are he/him" then a non-English speaker would be perfectly able to say"你好 Balonz, 早上好!" but they wouldn't say "这是Balonz，he 吃面包"

Would you think it fine in the workplace for someone to ask to be referred to as a cat or a vacuum cleaner or a Martian? No. Because those words have meaning and you know that your colleague is a human not a cat or vacuum cleaner or Martian.

Just because a word is small doesn’t make it less of a word.

Nothing to do with being “liberal”.

@Ddakji I take a different view on both liberal and pragmatic grounds:

Liberal: people are free to conceive of themselves however they like, and up to a point should be free to ask others to refer to them however they like (someone was the first person to call herself Ms, for example). Where that ‘point’ is is a social matter and society right here and now deems it fine to request pronouns. It’s not for me to ban that. What’s not OK is hard or soft compulsion.

Pragmatic: she won’t win over the HR department with your line. She’s more likely to harden their opposition to non-sharing.

Speaking as a linguist, I have to say the "my pronouns" thing does make my teeth itch. That's not how language works. Introducing fundamental ambiguity into a language by conflating singular and plural anaphoric references is not a good thing, folks 😏

I disagree with it to because it fundamentally ignores the nature of pronouns which are not some kind of pick’n’mix. They are words with clear definitions and are not for the choosing.

Along with that, adding them to your email or whatever steps over a line. If an organisation asked its staff to state their religion or political stance or marital status or sexuality they would be in very hot water. Adding pronouns is a personal, ideological and/or political statement which has no business in the workplace

Can you explain why?

Can you expand?

I'd just say 'I don't do pronouns' and leave it at that. If they asked why, I'd feign ignorance about them and say I didn't see the point of them and put it on them to explain them. and then I'd say I didn't believe in compelled speech. But that'd probably get me in trouble in a work setting but I wouldn't care. This whole thing is bullshit.
I'm a SAHM so haven't had to deal with this but my husband got around it but just ignoring it and he was in a very captured area ( not anymore, he's free!:-)

That's interesting. Why is it that you disagree?

I fundamentally disagree with this.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom that's a really wise post.

Based on Miss Scarlett’s point, diversity is really important. We need to offer a range of approaches and opportunities so that everyone’s differing needs can be accommodated.

Those who need to share their pronouns appreciate when some others do as well. Those who can’t share theirs for various reasons, are made comfortable by others who don’t. What was that scenario where the inclusion panel changed something in their organisation which made life really hard for another category of employees? Something to do with doors and visual impairment.

Diversity requires a variety of approaches, not uniformity which is in itself exclusionary.

In that case you need to be more clever about this.

You could raise concerns about the fact that there are at least two groups of people who don't feel comfortable sharing their pronouns. One group is people who think they may be trans but aren't ready to go public, and the other group is people with gender critical beliefs. Trans people who aren't "out" yet deserve to be protected and to have the space to share their new pronouns in their own time without being pressured into it, and people with gender critical beliefs are very litigious and tend to bring employment tribunal claims if they believe they have been discriminated against, with a very high success rate in court.

Given what a politically controversial topic gender identity is at the moment, particularly in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment, you think it is unwise for the business to be seen to be politically partisan. And as a leader, you are wary of creating a culture where people who don't feel comfortable sharing their pronouns are ostracised or otherwise put at a disadvantage. In your opinion, it is better for the business to make it clear that that people are welcome to share their pronouns if they wish, and equally welcome not to share them if they do not wish to, that you have single sex spaces such as toilets and changing rooms based on biological sex and also additional provision for trans people to ensure their safety and dignity, that your business is inclusive of everyone and will not tolerate any form of discrimination against anyone.

At a time where many businesses are exposing themselves to legal risk by making empty statements and gestures which demonstrate their ignorance of the law and do nothing to really help anyone, you feel the business should lead by example and create a truly inclusive culture by doing things which actually make a difference. Putting pressure on everyone to share their pronouns is not that, and will only sow division and resentment and potentially expose the business to legal risk.

This is how I feel, genuinely. I don't HAVE pronouns, I USE pronouns. The suggestion about 'sharing' pronouns is saying 'what pronouns should other people use to refer to you?'. My answer to that is 'I don't care'. I really don't. I'm very clearly a woman but if someone called me 'he', well, ok. Knock yourself out, mate. I'm not the one that would look odd.

Here's a good reason not to use pronouns in email signatures: a scholar has worked out the additional carbon emissions literally kill people.

I'm fortunate that I work for an organisation that has completely opted out of this whole discussion so pronouns will never appear on our email signatures or in our discussions.

That said, I'm going to opt for a possibly unpopular view and ask whether you want to die on this hill; if you do, then by all means make a statement by actively refusing, or using some of the pithy responses suggested here. You wouldn't be wrong, and I agree that the pronouns obsessions is bonkers. However, if you work for an organisation where this might actually be to your detriment - either officially or unofficially, and through process or just through others' treatment of you - then you might want to think twice about raising your head above the parapet. Sometimes I go with things at work not because I lack courage or conviction, but simply because I can't be arsed navigating the fallout from the alternative

It tells me that here is someone who’s signed up to a sexist, homophobic, regressive ideology. Not sure why that’s something you’d want advertised at work.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not.

It undermines perception of their competency.

That's my point.

If I see pronouns I just think 'unthinking dickhead' these days.
It automatically makes me think that a person is probably not going to be someone who is very proactive, capable and thinks out of the box.

In a way I’d like this to be the case, as it would provide an explanation. But in my experience it’s just not true - the people at my work who include pronouns in their email signature are generally extremely competent, intelligent and great at their jobs, often educated to masters or PhD level.

The only divide I can really see is by age, with those under 40 or so much more likely to include pronouns than people over 40.

If I see pronouns I just think 'unthinking dickhead' these days.

It automatically makes me think that a person is probably not going to be someone who is very proactive, capable and thinks out of the box. I just think robotic sheep who doesn't question anything and is a bit of a jobsworth.

So I don't actually think it actually gives a good impression of a company or organisation at all.

If you are trying to project a professional image to the public or clients, it isn't the totally positive thing those who push it, think it is.

I feel exactly the same as you when I see that. Is it not virtue signally enough to just put she/her, which is bad enough! I don’t need a lecture on how to use the English language, especially from the average genderist.

😂

Jesus Christ.

It was certainly excessively performative... as though radio had never been invented!

(Edited to add "excessively")

The people I have met who have never had any sight don't (obviously) have a perception of colour other than what their own imagination can conjure up. Are they to be reminded of this constantly?