Asked to put preferred pronouns on email signature

[Ermokthen]

Just had an email from team leader following a diversity workshop that she’d like us all to put our preferred pronouns on our email signatures, as this was a suggested take home action.

Other members of team already responded, some enthusiastically, others clearly not bothered and just going along with team leader.

I really don’t want to do this and have no idea how to respond without being targeted as any number of negative things. Help please...

But just so I can sense check - aibu not to want to put she/her etc after my (very feminine and not to be confused otherwise) name on my email signature?

How does this erode your workplace rights? This is an empty exercise from a diversity training (trainings which have no proven efficacy) and will probably be forgotten in a month or two. Being aware of the idea of "preferred pronouns" is probably the main point of the exercise.

meanwhile I heard a partner in a large law firm call someone a faggot (as a joke ha ha ) so clearly these diversity trainings are not sinking in...

I might use he/her or she/him just to confuse. They might conclude I am non-binary.

@Violetparis

I've seen pronouns on a couple of email signatures in the public sector organisation I work for. It hasn't caught on which I think is a sign not many people agree or are interested. If we were asked to include pronouns I wouldn't and I don't think I would be the only one in my team who would object.

Out of interest - did the chosen pronouns match their biology? If not we’re you surprised?

In real life I have a gender neutral name. I don't want to out myself as female and receive less beneficial and respectful treatment. So I wouldn't do it, no.

For a long time now, I have been careful in emails to not gender anyone at all. They/their etc rather than his/her. If somebody specifically signs off Mr/Mrs/her/him, then it wouldn’t be a big deal to refer to them as such. Personally, I don’t use Mrs. in emails, and haven’t added she/her to the end. My signature is simply “Emmeline “. It’s pretty clear I’m female and (probably) identify as such! I could probably find a way to alter it enough to make it gender neutral, should I wish.
I suspect as a cis woman, this argument isn’t intended for me, though.

Please don’t use the work ‘c**’ 🤮

I wouldn't, because, as someone has said up thread, it's completely irrelevant in a professional setting.

So I would have sign myself .... "Regards ... Susan Expo (she)"? Just no ...

Emmelina mn avoids that word thankfully.

In real life I have a gender neutral name. I don't want to out myself as female and receive less beneficial and respectful treatment. So I wouldn't do it, no

That's just it. We are still in a world, where, in many contexts, being identified as female leads to inferior treatment. Why advertise this just because it gives someone else the jollies?

No, I’m not a fan of the c** word either to be fair! (Why does ‘regular’ need a special word?)

You sound lovely and respectful Emmelina. Which is how I felt until I realised that all these changes are nearly always targeted at women and aimed at removing women's language, our spaces and even our very identity. I'll put money on it that premier league football clubs, Formula one companies and anywhere with a predominantly male workforce aren't even considering pronouns.
Virtue signalling pronouns are one small part of a package designed to undermine basic biological and scientific facts and persuade everyone that the words woman and all associated language and facts that relate to our bodies and lives needs to change in order to centre males. As others have said - it's all exclusive not inclusive. And it's bollx!

My name is female (so am I and always have been, in all respects). I'd be sorely tempted to put "Take a wild guess".

I'd not want to do this either. Fortunately I work for a sensible employer who doesn't get drawn into all this politically correct wankery wokery.

If forced into it, I'd put we/us just for the hell of it.

I suppose one could always put the opposite down, then sit back with the popcorn as your colleagues notice :)

I would not conform, I would possibly ignore the request or put something like Natural Born Woman under my name to stir it up

SageRosemary
Natural Born Woman

Quite a few people have done this at work, and all women. I wonder why.

She/hers?

Serenitynowwwww the couple of people who use pronouns in my organisation are biological woman who have stated she/her as their pronouns.

@Emmelina

No, I’m not a fan of the c** word either to be fair! (Why does ‘regular’ need a special word?)

"Cis" doesn't mean regular. It's Latin for "this side" - hence cisAlpine Gaul of Caesars time referred to the part of Gaul this side of the Alps. As opposed to "transAlpine which was that side of the Alps.

@Violetparis

Serenitynowwwww the couple of people who use pronouns in my organisation are biological woman who have stated she/her as their pronouns.

What a waste of time. I would have to use ‘do bears shit in the woods’ or ‘is the pope carholic’? I know I can look a bit rough after a heavy night night but even I wouldn’t pass...

It's a hill I will die on, and I also see this coming in my own workplace. Unlike early PPs on this thread I believe it does do harm. Very significant harm. I've spent my entire career as a woman and feminist refuting the idea that my sex is in any way relevant to the way I do my job. I've also been a targeted victim of sexual harrassment in the workplace. Language, and the ability to define what a woman is and needs in terms of sex-based rights is essential, and is currently under serious, mainstream attack. From me, it's a hard 'NO'.

she is the very definition of a cisgender woman.

Which is a definition many women – without a qualifying category prefixing that word – stridently reject. To paraphrase the wonderfully eloquent Jane Clare Jones, sex is the anatomical, biological basis of my oppression. Gender is the social system through which that oppression is enabled. The term ‘cis’ is therefore insulting for two reasons. 1. I am not a subcategory of my own sex class. 2. no woman in her right senses knowingly or willingly ‘identifies’ with the mechanism of her own oppression.

Can someone explain why they wouldn't want to? Let me see....

I don't want to.

I don't have preferred pronouns. People tend to use the ones that accord with my sex.

It forces me to join the ranks of those who belive in gender as something more than a social construct. I don't. More I object to those stereotypes and tend to reject them whenever I encounter them.

It's utterly unecessary. I am Mrs Samphire. I have worked in a job when being called Mr was an honorific that I accepted as someone elses social mores.

It's a choice. I choose no to.

If those subscribing to self identification are all about acceptance for all they can accept that I don't agree and don't have any preferred pronouns.

And, delving into Gender Critical Feminism, I am only too aware of the inherent danger of blindly accepting such ideology. I will not be part of the dismantling of women's rights!

I could add more, but that's the general gist of why I won't.

I can recognise that sometime you might not always be aware of the sex or gender of a person you receive an email from. But why does it make a difference? I mean if you need to refer to the person to a different person if you don't know then use their actual name. (in other word's you say "in Cherry's post, Cherry asked ..." rather than "in Cherry's post, she asked...". Might be clunky but it's a solution.

How does it work in the signature? Is it:

Cherry Valanc
CEO
Best In Business Inc
Uses pronouns "she" and "his"
Telephone: 01 234 5678

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

It's a hill I will die on, and I also see this coming in my own workplace. Unlike early PPs on this thread I believe it does do harm. Very significant harm. I've spent my entire career as a woman and feminist refuting the idea that my sex is in any way relevant to the way I do my job. I've also been a targeted victim of sexual harrassment in the workplace. Language, and the ability to define what a woman is and needs in terms of sex-based rights is essential, and is currently under serious, mainstream attack. From me, it's a hard 'NO'.

she is the very definition of a cisgender woman.

Which is a definition many women – without a qualifying category prefixing that word – stridently reject. To paraphrase the wonderfully eloquent Jane Clare Jones, sex is the anatomical, biological basis of my oppression. Gender is the social system through which that oppression is enabled. The term ‘cis’ is therefore insulting for two reasons. 1. I am not a subcategory of my own sex class. 2. no woman in her right senses knowingly or willingly ‘identifies’ with the mechanism of her own oppression.

Amen, sister.

If someone can explain why I ought to - that doesn’t include the phrases ‘be kind’ or ‘what does it cost you’ I’d be all ears...

Yours sincerely,

SerenityNowwwwww

Allergic to eggs, Libra, born in the year of the monkey, Inside leg 31”, likes owls, cheese and chocolate, favourite film: Alien, special talent: playing the kazoo, favourite colour: grey, wants world peace, prefers chocolate cake over vanilla but folk o chocolate icing as it’s too sweet, favourite fruit: raspberries (although not technically a fruit)...