Just been told to remove my pronouns from my Teams profile

[Horrace]

I'm weak 🤣
My manager just phoned me to say there has been some serious complaints made about me that he must urgently address.
I panicked.
In the Pronouns section of my Teams profile, I have

'Take a Wild Guess'

Its been there for a few years. Its finally been noticed and I've been told to take it down because it's made someone or more than one possibly, FEARFUL of me.

There is also the question of if you let some in, what criteria do you use and how is it applied/policed?

I find I am also continuely unsurprised how those who keep using words such as respect etc (as several posters have) also cannot engage with the facts about what respect means in this decision they make. There is an unthinking quality in these fall back catch phrases that are repeated as justification of supporting one group’s philosophical belief over an understanding and support of material reality.

It happens time and time again this same messaging. The messaging of be kind, respect this group, prioritise this group because they are so much more deserving than any one else.

The incongruence of ‘but this man looks so much like a woman that I cannot tell, therefore I support all those men and boys using female language and female single sex spaces even if others don’t look like a woman’, is coming across on this thread too.

It shows the ideological trap that people who accept someone accessing a space because a man passes as a woman are caught in. They then realise that they cannot logically articulate their decision parameters.

It then gets dismissed as nuance. No. It is not ‘nuanced’. A male person is a male person. Accurate language requires clear definitions based on sex when sex matters. Single sex provisions require clear definitions of accurate language. Declaring a situation is ‘nuanced’ is a weak argument when it comes to safeguarding and boundaries needed for female people.

Yep

I think the argument upthread was quite fruitful actually.

A starting point for many is 'this lovely transwoman I know', and it's completely understandable that this shapes people's views. But it's also important to realise we can't make laws on the basis of one lovely individual and our own personal experience with them.

There have to be clear, objective criteria in place and the rights of women to single sex spaces can't be waved away.

Yes. I asked earlier whether the poster who's argument was that her colleague was indistinguishable from a woman, felt it fair that person should use women's spaces while less fortunate TIM with less money and a different appearance should use the mens.
She didn't respond. Because it's very difficult to argue for a policy that treats some men less favourably on the basis of their appearance and means and willingness to subject thensekves to extreme and painful surgeries.
In reality, subjective 'passing' is irrelevant to the debate, as there is no way this would hold as a legal means to discriminate amongst TIM. So it has to be all in (including the huge muscular TW who doesn't 'dress fem' and didn't shave that day) or none.
(And yes, before I'm corrected, I know its applied for TM but for the protection of the women the space is intended for, not as a positive discrimination in favour of passing TM, so different.)

My lovely dh wouldn’t harm anybody, and shares a tiny tent with our dd when they go hillwalking and camp in the back of beyond. Does that influence my view on whether men should be allowed to take vulnerable young women camping? Absolutely not! This perspective of “they’re OK if I think they’re OK” feeds into the idiocy of fetishist men becoming Guide Leaders with access to girls who are being taught that they have no rights to privacy and safety.

I agree with you. However, I don’t see it as being all that fruitful for those who have already decided that their friends are ‘women’. They seem all to keen to dismiss people pointing out the inconsistencies in their posts.

I hope for anyone reading that they can see the incoherence.

I think the poster in question came to a realisation though, that she seeing this man as a woman isn't something that can be used as criteria for access to women's spaces. I might be wrong. 🤷‍♀️

What kind of organisation do you work for? I've just left a multinational, which operates in dozens of countries, I have a name which is 'obviously' female to most Northern Europeans, but have been referred to as 'he' on several occasions over the years by colleagues in Asia, because they're not familiar with our naming conventions.
Similarly, if I need to use a pronoun in a mail, but don't know the person I try to check first. "Andrea", is used for men and women, and there are lots of other examples.

But do you care / are you bothered by being called he? I never was

If pronouns in the signature were used simply to clarify actual sex, in cases where that might be unclear, that would be one thing.

But that's not what they are primarily for in these cases. In fact, you'd be none the wiser about actual sex as a result of stating pronouns.

In a work environment, I doubt many people would care. You just gently correct and move on, surely?

I discount anyone with pronouns on their applications when hiring for jobs. I know for sure that they will be more trouble then they are worth.

I think you might be optimistic. But I support you in your optimism.

Simple solution is to use initials

TOD will send the file to AS by ....
We had a meeting and TOD agreed to do ...

and FU ?