to not want to sign off my emails with preferred pronouns?

[AlphaBites]

We've had an email do the rounds today at work saying in the next few weeks all staff are expected to sign off with their preferred pronouns, to save any embarrassment for any staff.

I don't want to.

Can I fight this somehow?

I regularly have meetings at universities and several of my contacts have their pronouns in their signatures. I dread the day when I turn up to a meeting and they announce that the meeting will start with introductions and pronouns. It's a real possibility.

I definitely don't "identify" as female. I am not cis. In my twenties I thought I might be trans but I had neither the money nor the leisure to explore the possibility. (And biological reality has always had a much greater effect on how I am perceived than my own brainthoughts, funnily enough). When I was a teen and played role-playing-dungeon type games I always chose a gender neutral character for example. That was the limit of choice in gender expression I felt I had.

Like a pp said I would generally feel pleased if I was ever "misgendered". I am obviously female - I have enormous boobs. I dress as gender-neutrally as possible but my clothing still looks "female" solely because shops only make clothing for people with enormous boobs in styles that are associated with "femininity". I couldn't afford to do anything different.

I do not claim, identify or like having people use female pronouns for me but I accept that this is part of the English language - people cannot help but be aware that I am female if they have ever seen me. I would much rather everyone started using gender-neutral pronouns for everyone but that's never going to happen.

It would be massively unprofessional to explain any of this in the opening of a meeting. However, being required to state "she/her" as preferred pronouns would be forcing me to misgender myself but I don't have the required level of narcissism to request people use they/them of me. Why should I police the language of others?

People generally 'assume' that others are heterosexual by default. This is obviously annoying and it would be better if it wasn't the case. However it would be massively inappropriate for people to start putting a statement of their sexuality in their email signatures, or introduced themselves at meetings including this info. In a professional context it simply shouldn't matter. It ought to be the same for gender.

I was at a meeting recently where we were encouraged to add pronoun to name etc ‘if we wished to’. I did not wish to.

However, being required to state "she/her" as preferred pronouns would be forcing me to misgender myself but I don't have the required level of narcissism to request people use they/them of me. Why should I police the language of others?

Thank you, Higa, this is a very astute observation in a very open and balanced post.

It’s everybody’s right to wear what they want (though, as you point out, the women’s clothing market is deeply entrenched in cliched gender tropes) and refer to themselves how they want (whether by name or pronoun).

It’s not (and shouldn’t become) anyone’s right to insist that everyone else engage in public declarations of their own ‘identity’ (especially as the majority of people don’t have a self-proclaimed ‘identity’) if they do not feel comfortable doing so.

I was at a meeting recently where we were encouraged to add pronoun to name etc ‘if we wished to’. I did not wish to.

Did anyone do it? And and was everyone then expected to write a list of the declared pronouns, to preclude anyone accidentally misgendering someone mid-meeting because they had forgotten the self-definitions made at the outset?

I can see it both ways.

On one hand you might think that only people who do things non-conventially need to emphasise this. Whereas everyone else need not bother. And in the absence of stated preferred pronouns you just assume that John is a he and Jane is a she.

OTOH it reminds me of those who complain about heteronormativism, and who do not like the assumption that everyone is hetero by default. They would argue that if someone mentions their partner you shouldn't just assume an opposite-sex person. As that is "othering".

So I guess this might be a bit like that. They don't want it to be just assumed that someone is cis, or heterosexual.

But why is knowing someone is trans at all relevant to a work email? I don't know if the man ive just emailed is married or not, to a man or woman. Should I?

Fibbke you might have to refer to a colleague in the third person sometimes. Then it would be useful to know their pronouns.

Or you could just assume them in the absence of any other information. And in the vast majority of cases, be correct.

All I am saying is is that it is a known thing for some gay / bi people to dislike the convention of 'I will assume you straight and if you are not it is for you to disabuse me of the notion because straight is the default'.

And I am wondering if that is what is behind this, rather than just asking the "non conventionals" to have to point this out to everyone?

But being gay is irrelevant?

Giving the option to have preferred pronouns is fine, and perhaps a choice for some people. But it is only a preference, and surely can be yes or no, otherwise there is no choice, it's a rule.

If someone in a meeting asks for your pronouns, smile gratefully as if they've offered you a coffee, and say "Oh, I'm fine at the moment, but thanks for asking!"

colourless some did until it came to me and from me onwards in the dreaded circle no one else did.
We all had name plates in front of us as well. One attendee had written in hers ‘please use ‘they’’. I think this is what triggered the chair to suggest it. The woman who had ‘they’ on her name plate used a first name which was gender neutral (a name I’d never heard before also) also.

for those saying 'with unusual or unconventional names it's useful to know the [sic] gender of the person you're talking to' - that is bias, and it has no place in the workplace. You want to know if you're dealing with a man or a woman - why? - will you alter the tone of your email if you know it's a man?

For anyone else it is, as Higa very eloquently put it upthread, all about narcissism.

I am, as a millennial, fricking brilliant at remembering other people's preferred pronouns, including gender-neutral ones.

I still don't see how it will make the world a "nicer place" to make me put 'she/her' on my email signature. They're not my 'preferred pronouns', even, they're the ones I'm accustomed to, because I have been brought up hearing them. I'm not passionately attached to being addressed as she or her!

Also, I learnt a long time ago that being obviously female on the internet in internet 'debates' is a bad move. I choose gender-neutral usernames on forums for this reason. Having experienced the difference between being treated as male and as female online, I don't want to explicitly remind all and sundry that I'm female in a work email when it's not relevant.

And I am wondering if that is what is behind this, rather than just asking the "non conventionals" to have to point this out to everyone?

But where do you end? There was a man in the USA who 'married' his horse. There was a woman in Germany who 'married' the Berlin Wall. Should we make sure that we consider the feelings of very unconventional people like that and not just make the cavalier assumption, when we need to ask people about spouses, that they will be married to a human? This could be very upsetting to somebody whose spouse is equine or stone rather than human. Before anybody suggests, I'm not being flippant: these people genuinely believe what they affirm.

Incidentally, a great many people - especially older folk - find it deeply upsetting when official forms force them to state 'partner' with no separate option for 'husband/wife/spouse', but nobody cares about them, it would seem. Same with forms that put widowed/divorced as the same category, but again, people for whom this is important can just get stuffed, apparently.

Life is full of assumptions and, as long as there is respect all around, you can't expect never to be in a position to simply state your circumstances without a fuss if they're very unusual.

If somebody started a thread on MN asking for ideas for a simple, free pastime based on what other people enjoyed, and people suggested borrowing books from the library or going for a walk in the park - and then it turned out that the OP was completely blind and had had both legs amputated, would you consider the respondents unreasonable for assuming otherwise, in the absence of any info to the contrary? "Why didn't you ask if I had any legs, rather than just arrogantly assuming, before suggesting walking?"

Even something like veganism is very common nowadays, but you still wouldn't get most people (except for the crazy performance-playdate mum from the other thread) neglecting to mention that fact if they were after for easy meal suggestions. They'd simply state 'looking for quick vegan meal ideas for evenings when I'm late in from work." Only an attention seeker wouldn't mention their plain dietary requirement and wait to hurl abuse at 'omnivonormative' suggestions including meat.

If Warwick Davies weren't well-known and he called a tradesman in to fit a kitchen for him in his absence, would you expect him to mention the fact that he and his wife would want the work surfaces much lower down than standard - or would the tradesman be an assumptive bigot for putting them within the standard height range, without having been given any info to the contrary?

It's very simple and it's all about respect. You can't expect people to magically know, but once you tell them, they should graciously accept that and use that knowledge from then on.

I am, as a millennial, fricking brilliant at remembering other people's preferred pronouns, including gender-neutral ones.

Whereas I, being middle-aged and peri-menopausal, am liable to forget any conversation I had with anyone about anything with the half hour!

If someone in a meeting asks for your pronouns, smile gratefully as if they've offered you a coffee, and say "Oh, I'm fine at the moment, but thanks for asking!"

Love it!
“Preferred pronoun?”
“No thanks, I’ve already eaten.”

Having experienced the difference between being treated as male and as female online, I don't want to explicitly remind all and sundry that I'm female in a work email when it's not relevant

Absolutely. I have an uncommon name, people in emails often assume I'm a man. It'z amazing how much more credible my opinions are, if coming from a supposed man..

Thanks for your post Higa. It was interesting to read, and I have to confess, the idea of being trans as a matter of economic privilege is not one that’s ever occurred to me before. I also completely agree with you as to compulsory heterosexuality and the desirability of neutral pronouns for all, as is the case in some other languages.

I want to respond to some of your other points:

it would be massively inappropriate for people to start putting a statement of their sexuality in their email signatures, or introduced themselves at meetings including this info.

Yes, I agree. It would. But this is precisely what women are encouraged to do with their differentiated series of ‘titles’: Miss/Mrs/Ms. For one thing they’re pointless, as they all stand for the same word: mistress. It’s also infuriating that this isn’t just an indication of gender; they’re tantamount to an advertisement of sexual availability. One, incidentally, that men were never required to make. That some women insist on using them is another, if related point. But I don’t see why ‘Mx’ isn’t a legitimate option in a much wider context.

I dread the day when I turn up to a meeting and they announce that the meeting will start with introductions and pronouns. It's a real possibility.

Me too. And the idea that you’re required to misgender yourself and put yourself in such an uncomfortable situation is not only outrageous, it’s crazy. I hope you’ll tell them to whistle.

I choose my battles. Most are not worth fighting, and some would say this as also a trivial issue that it’s not worth getting in a sweat about. But this is one thing I’m prepared to stick my neck out for. It’s incredibly important to me to assert my own rights not to continually have attention drawn to my gender in this way. It’s a retrograde step for every woman in the workplace, and if we are not concerned by this, my reckoning is we should be.

If this question is ever posed to me my response, by default, will be either that I decline to state my pronouns, or that people are welcome to address me by my name.

She/her/it/that - not happening. Not by me.

But this is one thing I’m prepared to stick my neck out for. It’s incredibly important to me to assert my own rights not to continually have attention drawn to my gender in this way. It’s a retrograde step for every woman in the workplace, and if we are not concerned by this, my reckoning is we should be.

Next we'll be bringing the rank of Woman Police Constable back, in order to make the world "a nicer place" for transwomen, and screw any effect that that might have on female police officers.

I don't even understand what this means. I'm so glad I'm a sahm

I dread the day when I turn up to a meeting and they announce that the meeting will start with introductions and pronouns. It's a real possibility.

Just wondering - if I said "I don't believe in gender", what happens?

Everyone who does have pronouns is surely then (by default) accepting they do believe in genders and all they bring with them, as a way to define their sex?

It's a bit like telling someone they're in denial. There's no way to convincingly deny it!

But this is precisely what women are encouraged to do with their differentiated series of ‘titles’: Miss/Mrs/Ms. For one thing they’re pointless, as they all stand for the same word: mistress. It’s also infuriating that this isn’t just an indication of gender; they’re tantamount to an advertisement of sexual availability.

Slightly off-topic and I don't want to derail the thread, but 'Ms' doesn't indicate anything about marital status. It's just the female equivalent of Mr, so I don't understand why it isn't the default for women.

you might have to refer to a colleague in the third person sometimes. Then it would be useful to know their pronouns.

I find it somewhat sinister that there are people who want to control others' speech, even when they're not there to hear it.

Bloody hell! Just ignore it.

Bloody hell! Just ignore it.

Did you read the OP? All employees are expected to do it. We don't know how rigorously it will be enforced, but if it had been an email suggesting that those who wish to do so might like to state their preferred pronouns at the end of their email signature, nobody would be objecting at all.

you might have to refer to a colleague in the third person sometimes. Then it would be useful to know their pronouns.

I find it somewhat sinister that there are people who want to control others' speech, even when they're not there to hear it.

I agree with you, OldCrone. If somebody were using inflammatory language such as referring to a person as 'it' or worse, then that would be well out of order; but 'he' and 'she' are not negative or intended as insults in any way - they're just shorthand replacements for somebody's name to avoid saying a ridiculous sentence such as "I saw Isobel yesterday and Isobel told me that Isobel had a spare ticket, so Isobel wondered if I might like to go to the concert with Isobel; Isobel said just to let Isobel know if I wanted it".

In traditional English, each person is conventionally assigned one of two. If you're obviously male, then 'he' is used; if obviously female, then it's 'she'. Anybody else, surely it's just arbitrary anyway - and people will have had some basis for picking whichever one they did (physical appearance/characteristics, name etc).