AIBU She/Her

[beewritesx]

My sister is a big advocate of trans rights and says that pronouns in bio is a way of showing inclusion and support of the trans community.

I was quite surprised to receive a professional email from my ex boss with She/Her listed next to her email address (as I know this person and their gender).

I believe people should have the right to identify as they choose. If somebody asked me to call them X, I will as it's respectful. I also believe that if somebody is aged over 18 and decides to transition or change their gender identity they should do so with no persecution whatsoever.

However, pronouns in bio is just something I don't understand and cannot get on board with. If I'm ever in a professional position it's not something I would want to consider. I can't explain why. I just don't.

AIBU or too "traditional" (like my younger sister would probably argue) or does anyone feel the same? I can't give a rational explanation as to why I wouldn't, I just don't want to.

‘Oh yeah, Lucinda’s a woman, isn’t she? I'd completely forgotten until she actively reminded me via her specifying her pronouns in an email. Take her off the Anderson account and get her to make some cupcakes instead’.

Happens every day.

It sounds daft, doesn't it?

Yet studies show the the rational reasons why people believe they do things are retro-fitted by our brains to cover up the reality that it's usually our instincts, subconscious and yes, prejudices that are really making decisions, especially the "behind the scenes" decisions like what impressions you form of people.

So the fact that you can rationally see it's daft doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

As a thought experiment, imagine you have a colleague from Manchester with a strong accent (if you are from Manchester then imagine they are from Hull). Where they come from doesn't matter at all to the job but as you've spoken to them it's there as a background fact.

Now imagine every time they send an email or introduce themselves in a group, they add "I'm from Manchester". You are going to start thinking of their Manchester association much more strongly than you had before, aren't you?

I think putting pronouns in signatures to be inclusive is counterproductive.

If everyone starts doing it and then the vast majority use masculine and feminine pronouns which match male and female names your brain will start filling in the details.

Because you are so used to them matching you are far less likely to catch someone who uses them differently to what you expect.

Also, when did get it so embarrassing to wrongly refer to someone's sex in writing?

I'm of the generation of women who could screen their junk mail and sales calls by being addressed as Mr or Sir. It was annoying the assumption that I was male but no more.

My forename is not "read" as feminine to foreigners so I've been referred to as "he" on a number of occasions. I often didn't bother correcting especially after experiencing a change in attitude once someone realised I am female.

^‘Oh yeah, Lucinda’s a woman, isn’t she? I'd completely forgotten until she actively reminded me via her specifying her pronouns in an email. Take her off the Anderson account and get her to make some cupcakes instead’.

Happens every day.^

Yeah, if it's correct I don't think it would happen quite like that. A lot of this stuff isn't the result of a conscious decision.

My workplace wants everyone to include pronouns in our email signatures, I don't and barely anyone else does.

I think the fact that my autosig (which I manually add to people who don't know me - as I hate them cluttering up emails from people I interact with all the time), has 1stWorldProblems (Mrs). That should be enough.

@Blibbyblobby

A better comparison is if your colleague’s name was Catherine and they preferred to be called Cat. Might be a bit annoying for you to get used to but surely you wouldn’t mind?

That's not a valid comparison. A closer comparison is if someone decides to use my job title on emails instead of their own because they just feel my job title suits them better.

And then pushes to have some pretty major parts of the job removed from the job description because they will never be able to do them and that makes them uncomfortable in the new title (but they are still sure it is the right title, it's the job that's wrongly defined).

But those bits of the job still need to be done so I end up doing them anyway, I just don't get training or support any more because it's not in my job description.

When I complain about that change I am lambasted for not supporting the newcomer in their role, despite the fact they never passed any assessment for the job, are incapable of some key elements and have no experience doing it other than they just decided to appropriate the title.

After a while the new definition of my job becomes the common one. I feel uncomfortable putting my own, original job title in my email because it doesn't represent my job any more.

I'd look for another one, but it seems my job now has no name so how do I even find the vacancy I should apply for?

This is an absolutely brilliant analogy!

Nobody should be forced to do something that makes them feel uncomfortable OP. You don't have to justify yourself (although lots of useful suggestions were provided on this thread). Also politics/ideology should be kept out of the workplace IMO.