Pronouns - Can someone remind me why we are against this in emails

[landantan]

Hi

Can someone remind me why some people (likely myself included) does not agree with stated pronouns in email signatures?

It is being requested at work from the perspective of being a small step to being an ally to LGBTQ+ community.

I just think it is a bit pointless and whilst I have nothing against this or any other community I cannot see what knowing or sharing pronouns really does apart from make you look like a bit of a tit.

Can someone offer a more articulate explanation please?

Exactly. Watch the wheels, not the indicator ......

Ha, totally. The name "Ken" is usually the main clue. At my work they actually do add "his" as well, just to spell it out for any thickies 🙄

I know the done thing in the Stone Age was to sign yourself as Chris Notaman (Mrs./Miss) but revealing your marital status is completely inappropriate.

But if it's someone's preference to give their "title" then they should be allowed to.

What's wrong with "Alex Smith"?

The contents of your underwear are no one else's business. It's well documented that when many people know they're dealing with a woman they make assumptions about her capabilities. Much better to leave them in the dark, then they can't discriminate.

It is extremely unprofessional to make declarations about your personal ideologies in a business communication, which is what including your made up choice of 'pronouns' would be doing.

Would your company insist people include whether they were pro or anti Brexit?
Or their opinion on BLM?
Should pro-Ana people put that in their emails or should people include whether they are pro or anti Life in the abortion debate?

It also excludes gender critical women who may feel that an email has come from a hostile source who are announcing that they put mens feelings before womens rights.

The right NOT to believe in the pick your own 'pronouns' crowd has been upheld in a court of law.

For those who may not have a good level of English, or those who have English as a second/third etc... language, it causes confusion for no good reason.

@BellePeppa a new colleague has referred to me as “she” twice in meetings in my presence.

it’s pretty rude. Not because of trans stuff but because it makes me want to say “Who’s “she”: the cat’s mother?” She knows my name: just use it.

Your company are on very shaky ground with declaring all toilets are now mixed sex if all they have done is changed the nameplates on the doors.

Are they complying with 'The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 Cl 20(c)?
...sanitary conveniences shall not be suitable unless--
"(c)separate rooms containing conveniences are provided for men and women except where and so far as each convenience is in a separate room the door of which is capable of being secured from inside."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1992/3004/regulation/20/made

Have they done any risk assessments - what would happen if somebody was attacked, would they be happy with legal action? Also, have they assessed the impact on women from certain religions that would be effectively unable to use the facilities as they cannot mix with the opposite sex. How is that inclusive?

it's completely performative and meaningless

I've had many conversations with younger people (25-35) about (absent) non binary people, who were known to us all, and whose sex was known to us all.
Despite their best efforts, these young allies frequently misgendered the absent person and used the pronouns appropriate to their sex. In the English language pronouns are powerfully and unconsciously linked to sex, even when they are trying and 'well meaning' they can't do it. Further evidence is that when talking about an unknown or hypothetical person, native English speakers find it easy to use 'they' (as in, 'if anybody knows where my keys are can they let me know please)

In a professional context I was part of a hilarious discussion where people were attempting to discuss a non binary person and their interaction with various agencies (also designated 'they') ...so it went...'well, they said that they couldn't do that because they wouldn't be there then, but then they said oh no, that will be OK so they decided to change it and then they said ....'
and the whole conversation became impossible until people started using sex based pronouns. It was very funny.

In brief, it's all a load of bollocks.

I'd love to know what would happen if I put he/him next to my obviously female name.

I suspect I'd be treated worse than if I just left them to presume I was female.

I don't think pronouns help anyone but men, and even then I'd argue they're irrelevant for most.

Luckily my work has said it's up to you. It acknowledged a range of views (probably someone mentioned Forstater case to HR) and said blah blah respectful of other's views blah blah

But if it's someone's preference to give their "title" then they should be allowed to.

Yes it’s fine but we’re all on first name terms these days so we’ll reply Dear Chris rather than Dear Mrs Notaman.

Because I think that gender identity is a belief system no different to religion. I don't have a gender identity in the same way that I don't follow a religion. If people choose to add pronouns to their emails that's their decision but I would refuse if my organisation tried to force me.

A PP summed it up perfectly for me when they mentioned that it forces people that may be struggling to identify before they are ready to and it also feeds into sex based discrimination at a time when females are still paid less than males.

It is extremely unprofessional to make declarations about your personal ideologies in a business communication, which is what including your made up choice of 'pronouns' would be doing.

Unless you work at a university where it appears to be expected.... as long as they're the right personal ideologies of course 😞

Why might I not want to add my pronouns? Because it's a crock of shit is why. Imagine the following email:

From: HR Director
To: All Staff
Subject: Head of Bollocks

Hi Folks,

I'm pleased to announce that Malcolm Plonker has been appointed as Head of Bollocks. She will be responsible for all the shit that gets in the way of getting the job done.

Kind regards,
A Totally-Woke (she/him)
HR Director

You would just assume that She was a typo. A sensible email would repeat Malcolm in the second sentence.

For me in a work situation it is about delegated authority.

Take Halifax a retail bank owned by shareholders, who bought the stock for income via dividends and capital appreciation by a rise in the share prices.
They appoint directors to run the business. Who in turn employ other staff who are given delegated authority to act on the shareholders behalf.

The shareholders expect that the decisions will be based around the core function, attracting service users who will be charged a fee for services and/or who will deposit money which can be loaned out at a higher interest rate and attracting borrowers who will pay service fees and high interest.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4578817-halifax

So Andy has been employed to reply to communicate on behalf of the bank

Andy reads this:

"It does nothing of the sort, Lee. There’s no ambiguity about the name “Gemma”;I t’s a female person’s name. In other words, it’s pathetic virtue signalling and is seen as such by almost everyone who has responded to the initial tweet. Why are you trying to alienate people?"

And Andy uses "we" deciding that Andy has been authorised by the shareholders to make a official announcement:

"We strive for inclusion, equality and quite simply, in doing what’s right. If you disagree with our values, you’re welcome to close your account. ^AndyM"

Andy works for the shareholders and has no idea how much money could be involved.

If given a choice between a profitable customer and a pronoun badge (which the shareholders have to pay for), which will the shareholders choose?

The reality is given a choice between a profitable customer and saving the cost of an salary employee (pronoun badge or not), which will the shareholders choose?

I suspect that if Andy stopped for a momnent and asked if the CEO would push that option out to a vote at the AGM, Andy would may not have pressed post.

Now if I bother to look at the board of directors, (who signed off on the pronoun ideology and who delegated authority to Andy), how many of each has penis badge v has vulva badge would be needed?

Speak for yourself and leave out the 'we', chum. She/her here and there's bugfuck all you transphobes can do to stop me.

We're not trying to stop you, we're saying that we, personally, don't want to. The only people attempting to compel speech (or text I suppose) is the people declaring pronouns.

I work with international teams. Unless we go on a video call, I sometimes don't know if I'm corresponding with a man or a woman, and it doesn't matter at all. Similarly, if they, using English as a second language, use he for me, then I couldn't care less, because I have built resilience.

Frankly, I think building personal resilience is a much better use of your time than demanding everyone panders to your pronoun demands and being upset when they don't.

Oh, and perhaps it's because I've got a lot on, but I have often deep dived into some subject or other, established an opinion, and then forgotten most of what I read/my reasoning behind that opinion. Like throwing away the working when doing a maths problem once I've got the answer.

I don't give a shit about it. People can do it if they want, but I don't give a damn what gender you are. At work, all I want is for you to do your job right and treat me respectfully. I'll do the same back. If you don't do either, you're a knob no matter what gender you are.

This is completely disingenous OP and you are fooling nobody. The wide eyed naivety is ridiculous. If you want to be against it, be against it. I actually have slightly more respect for those on here who come out and say it, even though I don't agree. "It's maybe is kinda like chipping away at women" indeed.

Btw, the only person who looks like at tit is not someone on an email.

Say what?

Which bit are you struggling with?

I disagree with the notion that you should have any say in how people talk about you. It's peak presumptuousness.

If other people see you as a man, they'll automatically use the male pronoun. Likewise for a woman. No need to tell them to do the obvious.

And if you look like a man but in your head you're a woman, it's entitled and dixkish to demand everyone change the narrative in their own head, to match what's in yours.

There was a great thread recently with ways to politely refuse. I think she was at a work conference? I'll try and find it.

It’s a political statement of allegiance to a movement which is hostile to women who do not subscribe to gender ideology.

This. Also it forces the hand of people who might not want to state pronouns due to struggles with their identity.

Not to mention, as a woman working in a male dominated profession, I gain respect of males in certain countries, due to the fact that my sex isnt disclosed. No fucking way am I stating bloody pronouns. I've been confused as male before, I'm not the least bothered.

I think its entitled to think you dan decide how someone else identifies themselves.