Email sent by colleagues addressed to 'Gents'

[funkymonkey55]

AIBU to be annoyed by a male colleague starting an email chain to other male colleagues where he addresses them as "Gents" and then he loops me in a few days later - when the actions around the original email topic (gathering information together) need to be picked up (by me of course!)?

It annoys me because I feel 1) I should have been cc'd in the first instance, 2) Isn't starting an email chain where you know females will have to be cc'd in / included with the phrase Gents a little rude?

I don't know if I am being a bit overly sensitive.

I have sent emails to - and would send emails to - a group of men addressing them as 'Gents.' However, I only do this in an informal context, and where I'm very, very sure that they're all men who identify as male. I don't see the issue with 'Gents' when used with men.

I also think it's a ridiculous idea to forward a chain and go back through the previous emails and edit how you've addressed people in the chain - you just change the salutation/greeting in the new email at the top based on who is now included.

What I would take issue with is excluding a woman from the email chain who should have been copied in. I'm not clear from the OP's posts whether she thought, with the benefit of hindsight, it would have been easier to copy her into the first email (in which case, 'Gents' would have been inappropriate) OR whether it was obvious she should have been on copy and she was deliberately excluded by a man.

I wonder if the OP is being overly sensitive about how emails have been addressed to other people because she has been cut out of communications and has a very valid complaint about that. Sometimes when someone does something wrong, everything they do feels tainted by association.

My advice always is to focus on the thing you should actually be angry about. If you let yourself get derailed by other things, those tend to be the ones that inspire a back and forth and eventually, they get dismissed, with the big issues forgotten/ignored.

Nice one!

It used to annoy me last century.

I’m amazed it’s legal now!

Wondering whether those who voted YABU have ever worked in a corporate environment.

I don't see the issue with 'Gents' when used with men.

It's old-fashioned and unacceptable precisely because it's gendered.

I can't imagine it, or 'ladies' or 'girls' ever being used in my workplace, in professional dialogue.

How hard is it to say 'colleagues' or 'all'? 🤔

My days.....do some work instead of worrying about how something you were only CCd into was started! 😴😴😴😴

Or you could read the thread, and indeed the OP's post? 🤦🏻‍♀️

As I said, I would only use it in an informal context, e.g. emailing a group of male colleagues who I knew very well.

It's not something I would use in an external email.

And I have seen people use 'Ladies' when addressing a group of women in an informal context, where it's known that all are women who identify as women.

It is, admittedly, rare that I would have cause to email a group of people of one gender. So, usually, it's "Dear all" (internal or external) or "Hi team" (internal only).

I just wouldn't take offence at being addressed as a lady when, well, I am one.

@thereisnorightanswer

Regardless, 'gents' or 'ladies' is outdated in the workplace.

You're really ok being included under the banner of 'ladies', in the workplace?

If it's fine internally, why isn't it fine externally?

Gendered language is simply not appropriate. As you said, 'all' or 'colleagues' works fine in all cases.

It’s a clear example of sexism in the workplace. The thought process is not ‘who do I include on the email, they’re all male, address them as gents’ but ‘how important is this project, very, must be all male then’ and therefore automatically discount any none males. It’s exclusionary and entitled thinking and absolutely should be called out every time it happens.

@EarringsandLipstick yup....just re read initial aibu and I stand by my comment
....Cotton wool nation I despair

Cotton wool nation I despair

What does that even mean?

You clearly didn't read very closely as the post was fairly nuanced. It certainly wasn't just about the word 'gents'

Yes, this! You just saved me a lot of typing.

I'm in a work watsapp group with about 16 men across the country, we have the same manager.
He always starts his messages at 'morning/afternoon gents'. Doesn't bother me. I work in a heavily male dominated role. I literally couldn't care less.

@EarringsandLipstick 😺

Really? Bloody hell.

Ugh. People who consider "guys" as gender neutral too.

I would be offended. Loudly.

Gents is totally different from guys. I'd hate if I found men in my organisation were emailing each other like that. Not a fan of 'ladies' either tbh. I would probably leave it and hope he learned it wasn't usual- maybe ask another of the 'gents' if it was the done thing and indicate your surprise?

Yanbu. Because of the secist exclusion and takeover of what appears to have been part of your role until now, make sure the new boss knows you got this annuallt before now!
I also feel guys is gender neutral meaning a group of people, gals not so much. Gents is only used for toilets as is ladies, maybe part of why they have fallen out of use elsewhere. I don't think stopping using the terms is due to edi though, in fact edi is often actively harmful as we see now with twaw and the raf breaking scandal.

Sorry mn is the worst platform for mangling words and changing letters! Every time I write and it changes it to amd and I constantly correct. It is not my phone def the mn site so so annoying!

I work in a profession where more formality is expected externally than internally. And I have closer relationships with my colleagues than external stakeholders. It's that simple.

At least 'gents' and 'ladies' know they are gendered. I actively avoid using 'guys' as there are different schools of thought on whether that is gendered.

TBH, I can't remember the last time I used 'gents' or 'ladies' in an email, but it wouldn't offend me if used in the right context. I have had someone include me in an email addressed to 'ladies' recently, but that was in the context of organising drinks after a training session, so it was in that grey area of work mates.

I am female & if I was sending a mail to 2 male colleagues I could potentially use Gentlemen.

Language is hugely important in inclusion in organisations - i'm currently on a mission about it, but if the people the email is sent to are ladies or gentlemen or both/all then it's just factual. If it had been sent to you directly and had said Gents essentially making you a) invisible or b) one of the lads - then I think you would have a valid objection.

The people he is addressing are all male. He is aware of that and consciously or unconsciously is reinforcing the group with a matey, clubby 'gents'. It shouldn't matter what sex they are. They are professional colleagues and it's a workplace matter he's discussing. He should not be referencing their shared sex any more than he should be referencing any other shared characteristic. He could have said 'Hi All' or 'Afternoon Everyone '. He's given himself away.
Your antennae are twitching for good reason, OP.

YANBU at all OP! This would boil my piss.

I am female & if I was sending a mail to 2 male colleagues I could potentially use Gentlemen.

As a woman that might be 'just factual'. But if you were a man sending the email to two other men you're in the same club. And you are mentioning the club when you don't need to. And maybe didn't mean to. As a man, it's not just factual, it's loaded.